On Mar 28, 2016 4:43 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" <dwalsh redhat com> wrote:
>
> 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.
How do we handle new flags? Docker won't start if, for instance, one uses new flags with 1.9
>
> 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
>>
>>
>