Le 8 juil. 2015 00:22, "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On 07/07/2015 05:25 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> > Looks like a bad idea, you don't need it in a container.
>
> That may be, but doesn't really answer the question of how it was
> decided that it be dropped. If it's an incidental/accidental thing, we
> should have a discussion of whether there's general agreement on this
> assertion.
>
Longer answer:
I was not closing the discussion as it's something that will be decided by the group. but having ps in a container means that we're treating it as a virtual machine.
That's a huge change of the paradigm and not something we should encourage.
Moreover, the use case mentioned is not supported: PS is here used to retrieve process PID in a SysV init scripts, something we're supposed not to support anymore.
It may hide another issue but putting back ps is not the right thing to do.
Smarter effort would be making ps container-aware on the host if you need advanced process management.
That's definitely not consistent with the Atomic host story, too.
Again, this is just my opinion.
H.
> (Presumably it's always possible to pull in ps or other tools in a
> container, so this isn't quite as drastic as deciding to drop something
> in an Atomic Host...)
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
> jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
