On 05/30/2017 09:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 05/29/2017 08:20 PM, William Brown wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 11:44 -0400, Daniel Walsh wrote: >>> On 05/19/2017 01:46 AM, Niranjan M.R wrote: >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> I would like to know what is the status of having Abrt on Atomic Host. I see there >>>> was a old thread[1], but could not figure out if there was any work being done in >>>> that regard. >>>> >>>> I have 2 use cases here >>>> >>>> A. Having abrt collect crashes from application containers >>>> B. Having abrt collect crashes of process running on Atomic hosts (like docker). >>>> >>>> Any update on the above would be helpful. >>>> >>>> 1. https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-February/msg00026.html >>> >>> abrt should be packaged as a System container. >>> >> >> That doesn't seem right. I think that while we should have the goal to >> containerise things, there is a point where *too much* is reached. I >> think this is a good example (as is SSSD) >> >> atomic host should have "just enough" to make running containers a good >> system, and being able to admin them effectively, but without *over >> complicating* the system. >> >> I think that shoving everything (like abrt, sssd) in containers is a >> mistake because these are clearly in the atomic layer, and there is no >> benefit to the complexity of containerising them. >> >> * Do I need abrt to move at a different rate to my atomic base (no) >> * Does containerising it have a tangible benefit over non (no) >> * Does it add complexity (yes) >> >> Rather than living at extremes, we should be taking a more reasonable >> approach to this design I think. >> > > I tend to agree here. Previously things had to go into either the base > atomic host or they had to go into a container. Now we have package > layering, so there is a middle ground. > > I say let's keep the base relatively small like what we have today. > For things that are low level utilities/services we can either choose to > include them in the base or not. If not the user still has the option > of layering them in using `rpm-ostree install pkg`. With the livefs > work that is going on upstream we might even be able to rid ourselves of > the dreaded reboot for package layering. Dusty, do you have any link of livefs work that is going on ? > > For higher level services and applications container(verb) away! > > Thoughts? > Dusty > -- Niranjan irc: mrniranjan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature