[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o in Atomic Host

[Steve Milner]

smilner reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
In [this ticket](https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/360) is was decided to continue to keep
``docker`` in the base. However, we want to make sure that people have the option to use
``cri-o`` as their container runtime if they would like to do so (and possibly other
runtimes in the future).

For consistency it would seem ``cri-o`` should be added to base as well but this would
increase the size. However, we already have system containers for both ``cri-o`` and
``docker``.

How can we provide a good ``cri-o`` experience for our Atomic Host user base keeping in
mind that ``docker`` will be part of the base already?

/cc @dwalsh @mpatel
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[Giuseppe Scrivano]

gscrivano added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I think one way of doing this is to copy the CRI-O clients (crioctl, kpod, something
else?) to the host so that they can be accessed directly without requiring "atomic
exec".

I am very biased on this topic but I don't see the point of adding another component
to the host image when it works very well from a container.  Also, if the need arises we
have package layering.

In particular for CRI-O there are different versions that follow the Kubernetes/OpenShift
releases, so which one would be added to the base image?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  I think one way of doing this is to copy the CRI-O clients (crioctl,
> kpod, something else?) to the host so that they can be accessed directly without requiring
> "atomic exec".
>
>  I am very biased on this topic but I don't see the point of adding another component
> to the host image when it works very well from a container. Also, if the need arises we
> have package layering.
>  
I'm with you on that. The worry is around it being as easy to access as docker since
docker is going to remain in the base (though folks who need a different version for
OpenShift or other things will continue to use system containers). We don't want to
discourage the use of docker at all, but we also don't want to discourage the use of
cri-o because you have to jump through hoops.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o/podman in Atomic Host

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Added meeting label to discuss in next WG.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o/podman in Atomic Host

[Colin Walters]

walters added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
My high level feeling is:

Two years from now, for Atomic Host we should basically be a minimal install; `sshd`,
`kernel`, `systemd`, and then finally `atomic` and `rpm-ostree`.  Hopefully by that time
we'll have fleshed out the system containers story more, *and* also have
"live" package layering.  I hope we'll also have e.g. changed `oc cluster
up` to not require Docker on the host.

What we do in the short term is a harder problem, as well as how we handle transitions -
trying to drop `docker` would be a large and painful change without a lot of work.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o/podman in Atomic Host

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Some of the discussion around this (this is edited):
```
11:45:27     dwalsh | Yes I think adding podman once it stabilizes is a good idea.
11:46:12    ashcrow | It sounds like it's not ready just yet
11:46:19  dustymabe | still, the current question is related to should we include podman,
not should we remove docker
11:46:30    ashcrow | but once it is, assuming it's not a massive size hit, I think it
makes sense to add it
11:46:51       misc | ashcrow: massive size hit being around how much ?
11:47:39     dwalsh | 47 Megabytes right now.
11:47:41    ashcrow | misc: that is subjective, but IMHO it should be no bigger than
docker if possible
11:48:53     dwalsh | Docker files are currently 46
11:48:57    ashcrow | close enough
11:49:00  dustymabe | 1. add podman
11:49:11  dustymabe | 2. make docker not start by default but be socket activated
11:49:18     dwalsh | Yes I would lets us figure out how well it goes over the next month
or so.
11:49:22  dustymabe | that way the user chooses if they want docker running or not
11:52:37  dustymabe | we close it out and say "no to cri-o"
11:53:08  dustymabe | and then open a new ticket for evaluating podman in a few months
11:53:15  dustymabe | with the steps laid out above
11:56:20  dustymabe | #action dustymabe to create new ticket for evaluating podman in a
few months
```
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o/podman in Atomic Host

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
We will not add ``cri-o`` to base. ``podman`` will be looked at in a ticket opened by
@dustymabe.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407

[atomic-wg] Issue #407: cri-o/podman in Atomic Host

[Steve Milner]

The status of the issue: `cri-o/podman in Atomic Host` of project: `atomic-wg` has been
updated to: Closed as Invalid by smilner.

https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/407