On 11 Mar 2016 4:51 pm, "Kevin Fenzi" <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:22:28 +0000 > den...@ausil.us wrote: > > > From: Dennis Gilmore <au...@fedoraproject.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dennis Gilmore <au...@fedoraproject.org> > > --- > > inventory/builders | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/inventory/builders b/inventory/builders > > index 50dc58d..105a2cd 100644 > > --- a/inventory/builders > > +++ b/inventory/builders > > @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ arm04-builder00.arm.fedoraproject.org > > arm04-builder01.arm.fedoraproject.org > > arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org > > arm02-builder23.arm.fedoraproject.org > > +aarch64-02a.arm.fedoraproject.org > > +buildvm-ppc64-01.ppc.fedoraproject.org > > +buildvm-ppc64le-01.ppc.fedoraproject.org > > > > [builders:children] > > buildhw > > Seems fine, but note that this means that they need the rw nfs mount > right? > > On the others we do this with: > > $ cat inventory/host_vars/arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org > --- > # > # We need to mount koji storage rw here so run_root can work. > # The rest of the group can be ro, it's only builders in the > # compose channel that need a rw mount > > nfs_mount_opts: "rw,hard,bg,intr,noatime,nodev,nosuid,nfsvers=3" > > There might be a few more places we special case the runroot ones... > > Anyhow, with that caveat, +1
They should already be RW (pretty sure I already tested that bit), they are on IPs with RW access +1 from me > kevin > > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list > infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
