Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

We are currently thinking just to use a simple bash script.

cat /usr/bin/docker
#!/bin/sh
. /etc/sysconfig/docker
[ -e "${DOCKERBINARY}" ] || DOCKERBINARY=/usr/libexec/docker/docker-1.10
exec ${DOCKERBINARY} $@


And then allow user to change DOCKERBINARY in /etc/sysconfig/docker.

Then we would ship multiple docker binaries in /usr/libexec/docker/

One potential problem with this is handling of dockerinit,   which will 
thankfully disappear from the planet with docker-1.11.

On 03/28/2016 10:21 AM, SGhosh wrote:

On 03/28/2016 10:16 AM, Jason DeTiberus wrote:

Does it make sense to configure it through alternatives?

alternative changes the target via symlinks in /usr/bin - this is a readonly FS for rpm-ostree based builds.

For normal RPM installs, alternatives is an option.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Andy Goldstein <agoldste redhat com> wrote:

Ok, makes sense.

I'm +1 to having the ability to test out newer Docker versions. How would they ship - in 1 RPM, or multiple?

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Colin Walters <walters verbum org> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 09:31 AM, Andy Goldstein wrote:
> Would this be with SCL, or some other means?

The SCL model/tools become more useful when dynamic linking is in play, but currently
in our usage of golang there aren't any beyond a few system ones.  So I think it would
work to just have e.g.
/usr/libexec/docker-1.10
/usr/libexec/docker-1.9

And choose via a config file in /etc/sysconfig/docker which to run.

(And even if we did introduce dynamic linking, using rpath I think is saner for this case)

--

Jason DeTiberus