Re: [atomic-devel] docker binary

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

On 07/20/2015 08:56 PM, Waldemar Augustyn wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2015 11:41 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 07/20/2015 12:31 AM, Waldemar Augustyn wrote:
>>> I've been wondering about it.  Docker's docker is a single binary. 
>>> RedHat's docker is a binary plus some dozen shared libraries.  
>> Not sure I follow, we ship a single binary.  It is not statically
>> linked, it uses
>> shared libraries from the Host OS.  Is that what you mean?
>>> I
>>> certainly understand why a distro might do that.  But.... this is
>>> Atomic: everything is a container .  It matters.  Host services such as
>>> docker, systemctl, and a few others find their way to containers via
>>> bind mounts.  It helps if the bind mounted binary does not try to link
>>> against local libraries. Especially if they don't exist, or they do,
>>> wrong version.
>> We provide no guarantees for this, not does any other Distro that I am
>> aware of.
>>> Is there a chance Atomic might build docker, systemctl, journalctl, etc.
>>> as single binaries?  Or, at least reduce the number of dependencies.
>>>
>> We do not plan on rebuilding the entire distribution as static binaries
>> at this time.
> Fair enough. Maybe this needs time and some more thinking.  I wanted to
> point out some use cases.  Thanks
BTW, bind mounting into a matching container does work.  IE If you take
systemctl and bind mount from fedora into a fedora container with the
same or
later version, will probably work, although no guarantees.  We do this with
ping, and strace a lot for testing.