Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Copy kubeconform to /usr/bin/kubeconform #145

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Joe-Koch
Copy link

Copy kubeconform directory to a directory that's in your PATH to avoid "kubeconform command not found" errors, e.g. issue #144. The kubeconform command should work now and be consistent with the instructions, instead of needing /kubeconform.

Copy kubeconform directory to a directory that's in your PATH to avoid "kubeconform command not found" errors.
@nurtext
Copy link

nurtext commented Dec 12, 2022

May I hint that /usr/bin is designated for distribution-managed programs (e.g. installed through the system's package manager) and therefore shouldn't be used at all?

For self-compiled programs /usr/local/bin is the way to go.

@yannh
Copy link
Owner

yannh commented Dec 26, 2022

I agree /usr/local/bin is probably the way to go, but I'm not sure if this is likely to break people's workflow, since some might have had to hardcode the path 🤔

@Constantin07
Copy link

@yannh I don't think this is gonna cause big issues. A note can be added in release notes. Also updating the location is a pretty simple job to do anyway.

@@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ LABEL org.opencontainers.image.authors="[email protected]" \
org.opencontainers.image.url="https://github.com/yannh/kubeconform/"
MAINTAINER Yann HAMON <[email protected]>
RUN apk add ca-certificates
COPY kubeconform /
ENTRYPOINT ["/kubeconform"]
COPY kubeconform ./usr/bin/kubeconform
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggest making it to:

COPY kubeconform /usr/local/bin/kubeconform

@yannh
Copy link
Owner

yannh commented Jan 22, 2023

I am still concerned this might break people's workflow. Would there be a way with Symlinks to guarantee backward compatibility?

@LinuxSuRen
Copy link
Contributor

I am still concerned this might break people's workflow. Would there be a way with Symlinks to guarantee backward compatibility?

Good idea.

@nurtext
Copy link

nurtext commented Feb 3, 2023

May I suggest marking the symlink deprecated for the (over) next major version bump? This way you'll provide backward compatibility while marking it as depreaction / breaking change at the same time and everyone has enough time to upgrade.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants