On 7/11/19 7:57 PM, David Michael wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:22 PM Olivier Lemasle <o.lemasle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 19:56:47 CEST David Michael wrote: >>> I have orphaned moby-engine, the community Docker package in Fedora, >>> due to no longer working in a role where I can maintain it as part of >>> the job. If anyone wants to take it, it is up to date in F30 and >>> rawhide branches (F29 was not updated for compatibility since it >>> doesn't enable SELinux), but there is an open issue that should be >>> addressed before pushing new updates: Docker 18.09 and later >>> conflicts with runc and containerd since it dropped "docker-" prefixes >>> from its binaries. I can describe some options and backstory if >>> needed, but I suppose you could address it however you want as the new >>> maintainer. >>> >> I'm open to maintaining this package. However, what was the reason >> "moby-engine" packaged its own version of runc and containerd, both >> packaged on their own in Fedora? > Each upstream Docker release targets a specific commit of each > component (containerd, proxy, runc, and tini) specified at: > > https://github.com/docker/docker-ce/tree/v18.09.7/components/engine/hack/dockerfile/install > > These specific commits are basically considered part of the release; > e.g. they are included in the Docker versions' release notes. I'm not > aware of the initial decision to bundle the components in the Fedora > package since it was done that way from the beginning before I was a > maintainer (I'd assume it was due to previous Docker versions using > forks of the containerd and runc repos), but from experience > maintaining it for another distro, upstream would send user bug > reports back to you as the distro maintainer if there is any deviation > from what they're shipping. It might end up being less maintenance > work by not unbundling the specified versions. > > Also, when I started maintaining it for Fedora, it was explained to me > that moby-engine should follow upstream to provide an expected Docker > experience on Fedora CoreOS (since any specialized container needs > would be implemented in podman), but I don't think it is a priority > for that team anymore. You can probably do whatever you think is best > at this point. > > Thanks. > > David > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The problem is that the distribution is distributing a newer version of runc then the moby-engine currently allows, and podman and Buildah take advantage of newer features in the runc, therefore moby should not be shipping its own /usr/bin/runc. Since this blockes moby and podman being installed at the same time. (Docker-ce does this as well, and is wrong to do it.) If Moby needs an older version of runc then is shipped by the distribution then it should ship it's version under /usr/libexec BTW I don't believe the Moby should exactly match Docker-ce, it should follow the rules of fedora and hopefully be able to work with the other packages of the distributions like runc/container-selinux etc. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
