On 06/06/15 16:40 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Adam Miller wrote:Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this. The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile FROM fedora/armhfpUpstream Docker does have an Architecture metadata field. I'd imagine there is some possibility to teach the client how to pull the right base image based on an architecture. There's probably some discussion of this somewhere upstream? I'm CC'ing Vincent who might know.
this is a rough process. The client and registry work fine, on a given arch, but not sharing. Upstream has talked of making an arm.docker.io as a stop gap, but the problem needs to be fixed in the manifest and registry API. This discussion always tends to end with "we'll do more for this in the next release cycle". :-\
Or at least, detect when you pull an incompatible image? It'd be good to coordinate this with other distributions like Debian too - what patterns are they using? I think what might be nicest is if the architecture became an implicit 3rd field or something? So if I did: docker pull fedora:22 from an x86_64 host I got x86_64 (or amd64 in Debian terms), But it should be *possible* to do: docker pull fedora:22:arm64 or whatever on x86_64, even if it won't actually run.
feel free to open the topic on https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/docker-dev IBMers and others would gladly pile in on the topic. vb
Attachment:
pgp1q2di0LAjV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
