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. -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part