github-actions[bot]
commented
1 year ago Thanks for opening your first issue here! Be sure to follow the relevant issue templates, or risk having this issue marked as invalid.
Closed megapearl closed 1 year ago
github-actions[bot]
commented
1 year ago Thanks for opening your first issue here! Be sure to follow the relevant issue templates, or risk having this issue marked as invalid.
megapearl
commented
1 year ago I tried to symlink sw.js to transmission-app.js which seems to "fix" the error.
root@torrent:/usr/share/transmission/public_html# ln -s transmission-app.js sw.js
root@torrent:/usr/share/transmission/public_html# ls -l
total 228
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 15 14:47 images
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8286 Feb 15 14:16 index.html
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Feb 17 09:34 sw.js -> transmission-app.js
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 209890 Feb 15 14:16 transmission-app.js
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 459 Feb 15 14:16 transmission-app.js.LICENSE.txt
root@torrent:/usr/share/transmission/public_html# This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
drizuid
commented
1 year ago a couple things 1) we do not support or recommend deploying containers with portainer due to the high number of issues it causes for non-experts. 2) we do not support running this container in host mode 3) we do not test on photonOS and other users have reported issues when using the OS that require odd work-arounds.
You found your work-around so this is moot, but I run (and have been running for around 5 years) this container without issues or work-arounds.
megapearl
commented
1 year ago The file sw.js is a file which should be inside the image, and opened in utils.cc which is also inside the image, and has in my opinion nothing to do with the way I installed it.
Maybe there is a difference between the images of different architectures (x86 vs x64) I don't know.
Topic can be closed as the error does not exist anymore in the current image, so it has been fixed by the maintainer.
root@torrent:/# cd /usr/share/transmission/public_html/
root@torrent:/usr/share/transmission/public_html# ls -l
total 224
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Mar 23 04:31 images
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8286 Mar 16 16:26 index.html
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 208031 Mar 16 16:26 transmission-app.js
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 468 Mar 16 16:26 transmission-app.js.LICENSE.txt
root@torrent:/usr/share/transmission/public_html#
Portainer is just a front end to docker, I see see no difference in deploying containers via docker-compose or portainer stacks.
I use host mode because of IPv6, it is easier to passthrough IPv6 via host mode.
I see no difference between photonos or any other Linux distro using a x64 arch linux kernel.
It's not, but this is what people who do not understand portainer believe.
That is not the correct way to use ipv6 nor is it easier
we are indifferent to your OS opinion, i merely shared what other users have reported.
aptalca
commented
1 year ago Portainer accepts compose yaml as input, but it sill applies its own interpretation logic to them, which differs from docker compose. They are not the same. It also has a bunch of bugs that makes support and troubleshooting difficult.
Is there an existing issue for this?
Current Behavior
Lots of errors in log at startup
Expected Behavior
No errors
Steps To Reproduce
Pulled latest image (amd64 arch) and started container
Relevant docker-compose:
Errors in log:
Environment
CPU architecture
x86-64
Docker creation
Container logs