On 04/09/2016 07:32 AM, Antonio Murdaca
wrote:
Yes I think we should handle it the same way they handled dockerinit, where we have a choice of where to install it.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com> wrote:
On 04/08/2016 03:42 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:04:27AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:Ok so for now, lets package the docker-runc and docker-containerd in the docker package and use them under
Not sure what the policies of Fedora and Centos to have multipleThe Fedora policy is here:
versions of basically the same executable installed on the system at
once.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
tl;dr is that it's okay, but it's deone through the hack of putting the
version in the package name. This works fine when it's infrequent, but
is a pain otherwise, especially since each new version needs to go
through package review separately, gets its own repo in dist-git, and a
whole bunch of other overhead.
We have "some reasonable way of dealing with different package
versions" on the deliverables from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_Phase,
so possibly we'll have a better answer soon, but that's where we are
now.
/usr/libexec/docker. Lets not package containerd until someone figures a use case of it outside of docker in parallel
with docker. We will continue to ship runc outside of docker at its own independent package.
Ack, I still have to figure out if docker works correctly having docker-containerd, docker-runc and the others under /usr/libexec/docker (because I think it's not in $PATH)Otherwise we could patch upstream docker also to not hardcode binaries strings and paths
--
Antonio MurdacaIRC: runcomGPG: 0DE936B9