-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
Update container name/links of Bitwarden Unified to Bitwarden Lite #265
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
Conversation
|
Thanks for the update, hadn't noticed it yet. Your patch changes the line endings in the build.ps1 from CRLF to LF which causes the change to masquerade what was changed. |
|
Secondary note, think there is something wrong with our patch on the newest versions: Reverting back fixes the problem for now, will see if I can have a look at it tonight. |
|
Since the "unified" naming scheme has completely been discontinued I think we should rename the branch too. |
|
Hey @GieltjE, sorry I accidentally changed the line endings, I'm on a Mac and didn't realise that. My apologies! Anyways, I've gone and changed them to CRLF now. Also, I do agree that the branch name should be changed. |
@GieltjE we can rename the branch, but this would potentially break existing installations as a git branch -m unified lite
git fetch origin
git branch -u origin/lite lite
git remote set-head origin -a |
|
Agreed that it might brake some installations, but as BitWarden themselves have updated the product name and there probably are very few users of this branch (was utterly broken till my big commits a while back and is broken now due to something that needs to be fixed: #265 (comment)). |
|
licenseGen.ps1 has also been converted to LF instead of CRLF |
|
I have made all ps1 files checkout as CRLF in the |
|
When you look at the result commit only the changes should be visible, if all lines have changed something has gone wrong usualy. |
|
Still trying to figure out why it breaks when I switch over to the new branch. Does yours work? -Update- Which resulted in the same exceptions, don't think our work has anything to do with it. |
|
Also should we move from "ghcr.io/bitwarden/lite:beta" to "ghcr.io/bitwarden/lite" as that's the one used by the official documentation? |
|
Should be :latest instead of :beta? I believe latest is assumed by docker if no tag is provided but it’s probably best to explicitly state that. https://github.com/bitwarden/self-host/pkgs/container/lite/versions?filters%5Bversion_type%5D=tagged |
|
@GieltjE I've just run the same tests, and there's no problem on my side, container runs fine. |
Weird, tried multiple servers, even ones that have never had bitwarden on it, all fail with the same errors. |
|
Could you show what the errors are? Is it from Docker or something else? |
|
These just keep repeating. |
|
Oh, that's because there isn't env vars for it (or the env is invalid), I believe, at least from the shorter logs a bit earlier. There's this example file. |
Yup, when launching it with the old data cleanly it works, just after patching it fails for some reason. |
|
I've just run another full test, and it runs and starts completely fine, no errors or warns on the container logs, and the whole container functions perfectly. FYI, my test server is Ubuntu 25.10 aarch64, and both the official and patched containers work perfectly there. |
|
Was being an idiot, was referencing some old cached files. I'd say let's push this and get the branch renamed too while we're at it. @h44z can you push this patchset through? |
|
Should we rename the branch to |
Yes, please rename it, no better time than now. |
Bitwarden renamed their Unified containers, from the image
bitwarden/self-hosttobitwarden/lite.This renames all instances of
bitwarden/self-host:betatobitwarden/lite:beta, and fixes the links and text on the README.This was done in the bitwarden/self-host repo with this commit.