On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 12:08 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: >> Hello all, >> In the Fedora 24 timeframe the Fedora Release Engineering group >> is >> aiming to deliver the Layered Image Build Service[0] to allow Fedora >> contributors to build containers images. In the first iteration of >> this we're targeting Docker layered image support. Part of this will >> be to allow Fedora contributors to maintain Dockerfiles much like we >> maintain rpm spec files via DistGit. >> >> However we need to make a couple of decisions about naming >> conventions >> such that we can distinguish between rpms and container images as >> they >> are stored in Fedora DistGit. Also, alternatively we could setup a >> completely separate DistGit for container images that is disjoint >> from the one used for rpms. I would love feedback on everyone's >> preferences between those two options. > > You could set it up in /srv/git/containers, in parallel to the current > /srv/git/rpms ? > > That nicely avoids naming collisions. > > It also should be quite asy now that dist-git is in ansible, you could > probably just factor out the path in the roles as a variable? > >> Cockpit's Dockerfile repo in DistGit would be stored with a >> leading special character: >> fedpkg clone -cockpit > > With the "-" as a leading character, you open yourself to nice errors > with the fact that it could be recognized as options. So you'd want to > type: fedpkg clone -- -cockpit Yeah, all special characters have special oddities. Some of them we have to consider from many targets and not just the shell so it's probably not ideal. > > Alternatively, if you separate the two distgits, you could have a > fedcontainer tool, which would just be fedpkg but with its > configuration pointing to the container distgit, the container build > service, etc... > > Or maybe just a: fedpkg --container clone cockpit ? Definitely something along these lines is what we'd want to do. I like the idea. +1 > > Most of the code (at least the one handling dist-git) could probably be > reused without any difference. Yes, it's likely something we'd want to maintain in the same code base and have one just be a light wrapper of the other with the different code paths as necessary. > > All in all, separating them seems much simpler to me. > > You'd have a bit of work up front (to adapt the Ansible playbooks and > fedpkg slightly), but you pretty much avoid a whole class of issues > with naming collisions, cli options, and future surprises. > Agreed. +1 -AdamM > > -- > Mathieu > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
