11:54 a.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Keywords: meeting
-------------------------+---------------------
Container Layered Image Builds[0] (CLIBs) are going to be the first
deliverable provided by the Fedora Project as an official delivery/release
build artifact other than RPM. The first container implementation we're
targeting is Docker. With RPMs, there are many guildelines in place on how
to create them[1][2] for official inclusion for Fedora. We should really
look into doing something similar for CLIBs. Below are a couple of links
to draft docs to address some of these. I would like peer review on these
docs as well as brainstorming on areas that might also need attention
around this.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Containers
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Package_Review_Process_wit...
I look forward to feedback and continued discussion.
-AdamM
[0] -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Layered_Docker_Image_Build_Service
[1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
[2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
4:35 a.m.
#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):
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.
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.
Rest looks good to me.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:1>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
10:34 a.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by mattdm):
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.
I'm hoping, in the near future, to have a good way to identify specific
upstream content as acceptable for direct inclusion in Fedora containers
(well, not quite direct — I think we'd need some mechanism to
cache/archive it locally).
In the meantime, it would be cool if we could allow both Fedora-content-
only *and* Fedora + other legally okay and open source content in the
system, but require the latter to be based on a Fedora Remix base image,
which we should provide. (Or, possibly we have a layered image which
replaces Fedora branding with the Fedora Remix branding.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:2>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
1:50 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by dustymabe):
Looks like a good start. +1
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:3>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
10:22 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by 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.
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.
Rest looks good to me.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:4>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
1:46 a.m.
#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]:
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
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.
1:47 a.m.
#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:2 mattdm]:
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.
I'm hoping, in the near future, to have a good way to identify specific
upstream content as acceptable for direct inclusion in Fedora containers
(well, not quite direct — I think we'd need some mechanism to
cache/archive it locally).
In the meantime, it would be cool if we could allow both Fedora-content-
only
*and* Fedora + other legally okay and open source content in the
system, but require the latter to be based on a Fedora Remix base image,
which we should provide. (Or, possibly we have a layered image which
replaces Fedora branding with the Fedora Remix branding.)
The above sounds really good to me. Do you know if we have to get any
clearance on this from the legal?
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:6>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
10:09 a.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by mattdm):
Replying to [comment:6 kushal]:
The above sounds really good to me. Do you know if we have to get any
clearance on this from the legal?
On the Remix branding as suggested above, I believe we'd be following the
current trademark guidelines as written. The Fedora Council is the steward
of the trademark guidelines, and in consultation with legal could relax
them further if we found that to be important/useful in the new world of
containers and layered images. I spoke briefly with Richard Fontana about
this, and he suggested that the trademark policy as it stands is more
strict than strictly legally necessary, should we choose to relax it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:7>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
9:18 a.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by mattdm):
Upstream Atomic an has (excellent) best practices guide in progress. The
intention is for this to be upstream for docs for Fedora (and CentOS and
RHEL).
Rendered version: http://docs.projectatomic.io/container-best-practices/
Source: https://github.com/projectatomic/container-best-practices
The idea is to take this and then add any Fedora-specific information on
top of that. I recommend ratifying that approach in the Cloud WG and then
taking it to FESCo for full approval.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:8>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
12:54 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by acarter):
For tracking changes to enable distribution of these guidelines with
Fedora's special bits: https://github.com/projectatomic/container-best-
practices/issues/89
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:9>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
9:35 a.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by maxamillion):
I have opened a ticket with FESCo for review and feedback.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1573
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:10>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
12:35 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by maxamillion):
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:11>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
12:36 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by maxamillion):
Approved by FESCo, closing ticket.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:12>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
12:36 p.m.
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: maxamillion | Owner:
Type: task | Status: closed
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: meeting |
-------------------------+---------------------
Changes (by maxamillion):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148#comment:13>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
2869
days inactive
3025
days old
13 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets