On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:52:44 -0500 Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello all, > We're wrapping up the first phase of the Fedora Docker Layered > Image Build Service[0] and the time has come to start thinking about > what we as a Project need to do to formalize what it means to be > shipping Docker Layered Images once we are capable of building and > distributing them. > > These are effectively going to compliment their RPM counterpart > at least in the beginning since we as a Project have never shipped > any build artifact other than RPMs as a part of the distribution > before. We can grow organically from there if we want to extend > beyond the initial offering for Docker Layered Images but I thought > following RPM as a guide in the beginning was a reasonable goal to > achieve. Some areas that seemed pertinant right off the bat are > below, for each of them I have alread created a Draft document that I > would appreciate feedback on. So, at least at first it's assumed there will just be one rpm in each container? Or can we have a collection of rpms that make sense to be together? > Docker Layered Image "packaging" Guidelines [1] Whats the difference here between version and release? Does version change any based on the version of the primary rpm in the container? And any guidelines on naming? Just use common sense? They will have to be unique. I guess the build system has network access and people can put anything in CMD lines? How can we make reproducible builds? Or should CMD be restricted to only some network resources. > Package Review Process with a Docker Containers section [2] This might be better as a Container review process seperate from the Package review process, ie a different page? So it's assumed here that someone is a packager to submit new container reviews? Or would we want some kind of 'containerger' role for people who maintainer containers? > Docker Layered Images Naming Guildelines [3] I am not sure what to add to make this more concrete, but I think it needs to be. ;) > > The Fedora Cloud SIG has done a first-pass review of these (thanks > Cloud SIG!) so hopefully there's a certainly level of sanity to them > but I'm absolutely open to new ideas and extending the content with > more coverage. > > Another point to note is that we need to determine how this should be > handled in BZ components for bug reporting as well as for filing > review requests. I agree with the folks downthread we can make a bugzilla "Container Review" to compliment Package Review. Unless we think we can spin up a review application for these (like we are still hopefully planning on doing for packages someday). Also, we will need to make pkgdb create components for each container as well for people to report bugs against. kevin
Attachment:
pgp9EHcBD1CoX.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
