Re: [atomic-devel] moby-engine for centos/epel

Muayyad & Neal,

That makes perfect sense. Thank you for the feedback. It might sound crazy but I am keeping a list of every use case I can find and tracking our progress with podman.

All of these use cases make sense (and I plan on tracking them in my list when I get back to a computer). If I were to surmise, it sounds like many people need some time to migrate certain use cases which have Docker specific requirements. Hence, having the option of moby-engine around would make that more convenient.

Sounds like there are two short term goals:

1. Update podman in CentOS. I have to dig into this to see if it is tracking g the version in RHEL properly.

2. Add moby-engine to CentOS. This one might be interesting for for the same reason, but admittedly it would be hard for me to push to dedicate Red Hat people's time to package it. We would love a volunteer ;-)

So much work and so little time. I wish I could just knock out all of these use cases out on a weekend, but a 19 month old has put a dent in my free time :-)

Best Regards

Scott M

On Mon, May 6, 2019, 2:17 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 gmail com> wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 6:39 PM Muayyad AlSadi <alsadi gmail com> wrote:
>
> > Is there some particular reason why you still want/need the Moby Engine package?
>
> no, I just want to have that option (even if in a non default repo) for convenient and easy migration and switch between old scripts/ansible playbooks, new fedora ...etc..
>
>

At least for me, the main reason for moby-engine is that the GitLab CI
Runner requires it. No one has contributed a port of the container
runner executor to use Podman, so it requires Docker. It uses the
Docker Engine API, so it can't be trivially replaced by the
"podman-docker" package either.

Without the enhancements to the Docker package though (that is,
vanilla moby-engine), GitLab CI can't use RHEL environments without
some manual work in the middle. :(

--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!