Michal Novotny wrote:
> I am no flatpack expert, but I think that really any container technology
> in question should be just a porter of an rpm or set of rpms and there
> should (could) be packaged ansible scripts that are able to setup and
> spawn those containers e.g. in OpenShift or just on a host machine through
> ssh or by other communication means. This approach is not bound to a
> particular container technology and therefore provides huge amount of
> flexibility. We could also actually provide flatpacks for downloading to
> create some 'halo' effect but that again should be result of an automated
> image-creation process in which we should be able to chose what kind of
> containerization we want.
Keep in mind that Ansible is also something small-scale admins don't use. It
only makes sense at all if you have at least 2 servers, and it is only
really worthwhile if you have several, mostly identical servers. If you have
just one server, or two or three servers with very different configuration
from each other, it's just not worth it. So the workflow you suggest
introduces an extra learning curve.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
