#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by sankarshan):
Replying to [comment:1 kushal]:
> I guess we have to add more details about what all is allowed to be in
> the containers. Like can we get arbitrary things from Internet into
> those containers? Say a web application which is yet to be packaged in
> Fedora as an rpm.
>
That is a different aspect is it not? An individual developer should be
able to build off the "official"/"blessed" base image and layer additional
components to create a mesh of containers delivering that service. In a
somewhat ideal world, the availability of CDK etc should encourage the
producers of containers to seek formal inclusion in the registry.
> We also have to define the relationships (and how) between the images.
> Like the Requires in the rpm spec files. We know for sure that most of
> the actual applications will require more than one container running.
>
Any non-trivial containerized service will have multiple containers being
managed. The specific gate of requiring the application to be available as
an RPM may or, may not provide the added benefit of build system integrity
providing a semblance of security checks.
> Rest looks good to me.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:4>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
