On Tue, 3 May 2016 11:22:30 -0500 Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Collection of RPMs is fine, the goal is just not to ship non-rpm code > or content yet outside of Docker-ized application control scripts > where needed/applicable. ok. > > It shouldn't but it can in the future, I was more or less replicating > this information in the beginning to hopefully leave some space for > this to change in the future of the Fedora Modularization efforts > because a module could potentially have it's own versioning scheme > outside of the content inside of it. Has it been decided that modules are docker containers? > > And any guidelines on naming? Just use common sense? They will have > > to be unique. > > Yes, need to be unique. This is going to follow the RPM naming > guidelines for now. Well, sure, but say I make a container that is some web app + web server + database. Do I call it by the app name? The web server name? A combo? > > 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. > > The build system does currently but ultimately doesn't need it since > we can inject internal Fedora mirrors into the build environment that > the container is built in. Which is something we may or may not want > to do. The CMD lines likely need some guidelines around them and > should be added to the doc. Yeah, if we aren't restricting the network for builds, anyone can do anything in a CMD line right? and since it depends on something outside in the net it may be changed or gone later when we rebuild. > > 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? > > That's up for discussion. I think they should be separate because > being well versed in creating Docker images doesn't inherently mean > someone is well versed in creating RPMs, just as the inverse is not > inherently true. I've in the past gotten some flack for that opinion > so I'd definitely like that to be opened up to more discussion. Sure. I think seperate would be ok. > > 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). > > +1 > > > > > Also, we will need to make pkgdb create components for each > > container as well for people to report bugs against. > > +1 - I'm honestly not sure how to go about that, I assume I need to > send a request to BZ folks somehow but how BZ is admin'd/hosted is a > bit of a black box to me. I would appreciate advisement on that. Fedora Infrastructure has a admin user that can create components and such under the "Fedora" Product. So, just a infrastructure ticket would be the way to go. kevin
Attachment:
pgpBGpy46h9Gy.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
