#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by kushal):
Replying to [comment:4 sankarshan]:
Replying to [comment:1 kushal]:
> I guess we have to add more details about what all is allowed to be in
> the containers. Like can we get arbitrary things from Internet into
> those containers? Say a web application which is yet to be packaged in
> Fedora as an rpm.
That is a different aspect is it not? An individual developer should be
able to
build off the "official"/"blessed" base image and layer additional
components to create a mesh of containers delivering that service. In a
somewhat ideal world, the availability of CDK etc should encourage the
producers of containers to seek formal inclusion in the registry.
It is actually very much part of this discussion as we are formalizing the
way one can build up an image on official Fedora Infrastructure. As
matthew mentioned in the comment above, we clearly have to define what can
be called/build/distributed as Fedora image.
> We also have to define the relationships (and how) between the images.
> Like the Requires in the rpm spec files. We know for sure that most of
> the actual applications will require more than one container running.
Any non-trivial containerized service will have multiple containers
being managed.
The specific gate of requiring the application to be
available as an RPM may or, may not provide the added benefit of build
system integrity providing a semblance of security checks.
I guess we both are saying the same things here.
--
Ticket URL: <
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:5>
cloud <
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System