[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [atomic-devel] Atomic including cockpit-bridge?

On 15.12.2014 17:16, Colin Walters wrote:
> Sorry about being slow to respond to this,
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Stef Walter wrote:
>>  * The cockpit-bridge which proxies UI requests to the system
> I like this concept.  While it looks like you guys have thought
> about this already, are you prepared to handle version skew,
> where the host has an arbitrarily old or arbitrarily new bridge?

Yes indeed. A few answers here:

 * We are trying to clean up the protocol in advance, and do proof
   of concepts, push boundaries etc ... with the aim that most of the
   big changes are out of the way. Lots of such changes have recently

 * We can add new "payloads" to the protocol, and we return
   "not-supported" errors to callers when the system doesn't
   support them. This is also the case when the system doesn't
   have certain dependencies necessary to handle something.

 * We have a "version" field in the protocol that is advertised by
   all participants before any other messages are sent. We're currently
   in the at the unstable version "0". Some time in January or February
   we'll have to move to version "1" and start acting all stable and

>>  * The Atomic specific Cockpit UI files
> This isn't a subpackage in Fedora rawhide today, right?

The idea is that a system will have the Cockpit UI files installed
necessary to represent itself.

Cockpit is not completely modular yet, but we've made just enough
changes so that the Cockpit UI files for Atomic will not drag in
unnecessary dependencies (please tell us if it does).

This is in version 0.35 which I'll push this evening. The relevant
noarch UI packages that currently fit Atomic are:

 * cockpit-shell
 * cockpit-docker

In the future the following will also be broken out and/or features
landed. But we're not ready with these yet:

 * cockpit-ostree
 * cockpit-kubernetes
 * cockpit-network-manager

Hope that makes sense.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]