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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

cross run: stdin doesn't work #52

Closed
japaric opened this issue Jan 11, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

cross run: stdin doesn't work #52

japaric opened this issue Jan 11, 2017 · 5 comments
Labels
A-container-engine Area: container engines bug

Comments

@japaric
Copy link
Contributor

japaric commented Jan 11, 2017 

$ echo hello | cross run
the input device is not a TTY
pitkley added a commit to pitkley/rust-embedded-cross that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2017
@pitkley
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY
974d8c6 
This fixes issue cross-rs#52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if
this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.
@pitkley pitkley mentioned this issue Dec 10, 2017
Closed
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 16, 2017
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
617b9bd 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
3163527 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 13, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
1090151 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
81a7d40 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
bb6c62f 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
c9f65fc 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
japaric pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2018
@homunkulus
Auto merge of #169 - pitkley:docker-no-pseudo-tty, r=japaric
f85aca9 
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY

This fixes issue #52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the Docker `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.

From my arguably limited tests, I have [confirmed](https://gist.github.com/pitkley/c581f612225688937cc8b7f3a7deff9a) that `echo hello | cross run` works. Furthermore, this enables me to run `cross build` in a Gitlab CI job, which otherwise also failed with the error mentioned in #52: `the input device is not a TTY`.
@timvisee
Copy link

timvisee commented Jun 20, 2018 •
edited
Loading

I'm having the same issue when running cross on GitLab CI, probably because the CI doesn't emulate a full tty.

Would it be possible to disable the use of -it when cross is calling Docker internally (of which I think it is causing the issue)?

arsing pushed a commit to arsing/cross that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2019
@pitkley @arsing
Don't allocate a pseudo-TTY
9414625 
This fixes issue cross-rs#52 as far as I can tell.

Since documentation on the `-t` flag is rather sparse, I am not sure if
this has any negative implications on existing usage of cross.
@xoac
Copy link

xoac commented Mar 17, 2019

Similar issue for Azure Pipelines.
example error

@xoac
Copy link

xoac commented Mar 18, 2019

@borsboom temporary solution for azure pipelines here I think similar can be done for gitlab.

@ndusart
Copy link

ndusart commented Sep 4, 2019

shouldn't it be closed by #294 ?

@reitermarkus
Copy link
Member

Yes, this should be fixed.

@ndusart ndusart mentioned this issue Sep 5, 2019
Closed
@jessebraham jessebraham mentioned this issue Feb 7, 2022
Closed
@arsing arsing mentioned this issue Mar 10, 2022
Merged
arsing added a commit to arsing/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2
104a2bd 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
arsing added a commit to arsing/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2
18f4302 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
arsing added a commit to arsing/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2
05f2d23 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
This was referenced Mar 11, 2022
Merged
Merged
kodiakhq bot pushed a commit to Azure/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2 (#6194)
a6b5690 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
kodiakhq bot pushed a commit to Azure/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2 (#6196)
a0f148e 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
arsing added a commit to arsing/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.1
5db95d1 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e

Unlike the other branches, this uses cross 0.1 and not 0.2. This is because
this branch builds one additional target, iotedge-proxy for
x86_64-unknown-linux-musl, to make an iotedge-proxy Docker image
for Kubernetes. We do not have a custom builder image for this target,
so cross 0.2 would use upstream's image, which does not have openssl.
We could use cross 0.2 with a custom image, like we do for the ARM targets
(see Cross.toml), but for now this change just sticks with cross 0.1.
The openssl in 0.1's image is still ancient (the image hasn't been updated
in 4 years), but Dave said that can be tackled separately later, as part of
updating openssl across this branch in general.
arsing added a commit to arsing/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.1
b94c551 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e

The image-linux-rust job uses cross 0.1 and not 0.2. This is because
this job builds iotedge-proxy for x86_64-unknown-linux-musl, to make
an iotedge-proxy Docker image for Kubernetes. We do not have
a custom builder image for this target, so cross 0.2 would use upstream's image,
which does not have openssl. We *could* use cross 0.2 with a custom image,
like we do for the ARM targets (see Cross.toml), but for now this change just
sticks with cross 0.1. The openssl in 0.1's image is still ancient
(the image hasn't been updated in 4 years), but Dave said that can be tackled
later, as part of updating openssl across this branch in general.
@arsing arsing mentioned this issue Mar 11, 2022
Closed
kodiakhq bot pushed a commit to Azure/iotedge that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2022
@arsing
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2 (#6197)
f80d704 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e

This commit also removes jobs used to build iotedged and iotedge-proxy in
Docker containers, since these were only used for Kubernetes,
but Kubernetes stuff lives in the release/1.1-k8s-preview branch. Dave had
removed the .Net parts of Kubernetes support from release/1.1 earlier,
so he suggested removing the Rust parts too.
damonbarry pushed a commit to damonbarry/iotedge that referenced this issue Apr 15, 2022
@arsing @damonbarry
Revert usage of arsing/cross to upstream cross 0.2 (Azure#6194)
f261506 
The fix we needed was merged into upstream a long time ago.

Ref: cross-rs/cross#52
Ref: cross-rs/cross@249500e
@Alexhuszagh Alexhuszagh added bug A-container-engine Area: container engines labels Nov 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-container-engine Area: container engines bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@timvisee @reitermarkus @ndusart @xoac @japaric @Alexhuszagh