OpenSlides - digital motion and assembly system
-
@girish Just a bump on this - figure it got lost in the 6.0-releasing shuffle. No huge deal, but hope it can still make
unstablethis year
@jimcavoli Not lost
It's marked as https://forum.cloudron.io/tags/wip . But yes, now that we got Cloudron 6 out of the day (save the announcements), we will have time to push these out. -
The build currently fails
Step 6/32 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in cb29f0b4fa6c % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 121 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 121 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above. -
-
I've updated https://git.cloudron.io/jimcavoli/openslides-app for OpenSlides 3.3
-
@jimcavoli Oh wow, this with LDAP and large voting sessions can become a breeze.
@yusf I agree. Unfortunately it only supports SAML for SSO so far. Could send a feature request upstream. I've also got a partially-implemented packaging of the Shibboleth IdP for Cloudron, but that's a little stalled while I work out how to deal with some of its idiosyncrasies
-
@jimcavoli I tried building it again the other day and still got the same error. So, I have to investigate why. Maybe something with multi-state builds and our build server.
Step 1/33 : FROM cloudron/base:2.0.0 AS base ---> afa4cfc125b4 Step 2/33 : ARG OPENSLIDES_VERSION=3.3 ---> Using cache ---> ab03eb3a365d Step 3/33 : ARG NODE_VERSION=13.14.0 ---> Using cache ---> fb11ecf942b5 Step 4/33 : RUN apt-get update && apt-get -y install apt-transport-https bzip2 curl g++ gcc git gnupg2 libpq-dev make postgresql-client rsync wait-for-it wget xz-utils zlib1g-dev libffi-dev dnsutils iputils-ping netcat procps traceroute libxml2-dev libxmlsec1-dev libxmlsec1-openssl pkg-config python3-setuptools gunicorn3 && rm -rf /var/cache/apt /var/lib/apt/lists ---> Using cache ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 5/33 : FROM base as build ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 6/33 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in e115acee95fb % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 84 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 85 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above. -
@jimcavoli I tried building it again the other day and still got the same error. So, I have to investigate why. Maybe something with multi-state builds and our build server.
Step 1/33 : FROM cloudron/base:2.0.0 AS base ---> afa4cfc125b4 Step 2/33 : ARG OPENSLIDES_VERSION=3.3 ---> Using cache ---> ab03eb3a365d Step 3/33 : ARG NODE_VERSION=13.14.0 ---> Using cache ---> fb11ecf942b5 Step 4/33 : RUN apt-get update && apt-get -y install apt-transport-https bzip2 curl g++ gcc git gnupg2 libpq-dev make postgresql-client rsync wait-for-it wget xz-utils zlib1g-dev libffi-dev dnsutils iputils-ping netcat procps traceroute libxml2-dev libxmlsec1-dev libxmlsec1-openssl pkg-config python3-setuptools gunicorn3 && rm -rf /var/cache/apt /var/lib/apt/lists ---> Using cache ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 5/33 : FROM base as build ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 6/33 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in e115acee95fb % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 84 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 85 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above.@girish I could try to adjust it to be a straight-through Dockerfile. Alternately, if you aren't running with
DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1on that machine (which it appears not to be based on output), would you want to give that a shot? As of Docker 20.10.0 (released 8 December 2020), it is considered a stable core feature.I've got other packagings coming soon that are written to use the same build features, especially when there's a lot of things to build/download, so it'd be nice to know where we're going to land on this. Looks like packages on both my 18.04 and 20.04 boxes are at 19.03.8 which is the 10 March 2020 release. I do happen to be running 20.10.2 on my development machine (and the remote Ubuntu 20.04 build server to be technical, which is the latest, 04 January 2021 release), but it's not like the artifacts are any less compatible after being output with recent versions (those containers ship just fine onto my test Cloudron).
It seems to me like the buildkit engine should be preferable and backward-compatible as described in https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/build_enhancements/ certainly in the 20.x series and beyond, but I've had no issues using it full-time for over a year on the 19.x series and mixing 20.x builds to 19.x runtimes as well.
-
@girish I could try to adjust it to be a straight-through Dockerfile. Alternately, if you aren't running with
DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1on that machine (which it appears not to be based on output), would you want to give that a shot? As of Docker 20.10.0 (released 8 December 2020), it is considered a stable core feature.I've got other packagings coming soon that are written to use the same build features, especially when there's a lot of things to build/download, so it'd be nice to know where we're going to land on this. Looks like packages on both my 18.04 and 20.04 boxes are at 19.03.8 which is the 10 March 2020 release. I do happen to be running 20.10.2 on my development machine (and the remote Ubuntu 20.04 build server to be technical, which is the latest, 04 January 2021 release), but it's not like the artifacts are any less compatible after being output with recent versions (those containers ship just fine onto my test Cloudron).
It seems to me like the buildkit engine should be preferable and backward-compatible as described in https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/build_enhancements/ certainly in the 20.x series and beyond, but I've had no issues using it full-time for over a year on the 19.x series and mixing 20.x builds to 19.x runtimes as well.
@jimcavoli Yes, I can fix it up. I actually use our build service app which doesn't have BUILDKIT set (assuming, it's off by default). Currently, all cloudrons and all our related services are around Docker 19. I guess we should upgrade Docker to 20 in the next Cloudron release which will help us move forward with the buildkit stuff.
-
@jimcavoli Yes, I can fix it up. I actually use our build service app which doesn't have BUILDKIT set (assuming, it's off by default). Currently, all cloudrons and all our related services are around Docker 19. I guess we should upgrade Docker to 20 in the next Cloudron release which will help us move forward with the buildkit stuff.
-
@girish Sounds good; let me know if you need anything along the way - happy to help in any way I can!
@jimcavoli any progress on this, have to run a small conference in a month.
-
@jimcavoli any progress on this, have to run a small conference in a month.
@bubonicfred I was just looking into this today. @jimcavoli has finished up the packaging as such.
@jimcavoli where did you find the packaging instructions/docs from? I was trying to just follow through the Dockerfile but it seems quite complicated and I could not find any instructions or code on the openslides site atleast
-
@bubonicfred I was just looking into this today. @jimcavoli has finished up the packaging as such.
@jimcavoli where did you find the packaging instructions/docs from? I was trying to just follow through the Dockerfile but it seems quite complicated and I could not find any instructions or code on the openslides site atleast
@girish said in OpenSlides - digital motion and assembly system:
I was trying to just follow through the Dockerfile but it seems quite complicated and I could not find any instructions or code on the openslides site atleast
Is one of these what you're looking for?
https://github.com/OpenSlides/openslides-docker-compose
https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/tree/master/docker
https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/blob/master/README.rst#setup-docker-images -
@bubonicfred I was just looking into this today. @jimcavoli has finished up the packaging as such.
@jimcavoli where did you find the packaging instructions/docs from? I was trying to just follow through the Dockerfile but it seems quite complicated and I could not find any instructions or code on the openslides site atleast
@girish Yeah, what @jdaviescoates posted is the thing - it's largely not documented all that well from the technical setup perspective. I just sort of...figured it out? There's not that many components and it's a pretty standard python app. Because it's not well-documented on the project's part insofar as running is concerned, that's a large part of why I made the readme and put all the notes in that I did.
-
@girish Yeah, what @jdaviescoates posted is the thing - it's largely not documented all that well from the technical setup perspective. I just sort of...figured it out? There's not that many components and it's a pretty standard python app. Because it's not well-documented on the project's part insofar as running is concerned, that's a large part of why I made the readme and put all the notes in that I did.
