On Tue, 3 May 2016 11:22:30 -0500
Adam Miller <maxamillion(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Collection of RPMs is fine, the goal is just not to ship non-rpm
code
or content yet outside of Docker-ized application control scripts
where needed/applicable.
ok.
It shouldn't but it can in the future, I was more or less replicating
this information in the beginning to hopefully leave some space for
this to change in the future of the Fedora Modularization efforts
because a module could potentially have it's own versioning scheme
outside of the content inside of it.
Has it been decided that modules are docker containers?
> And any guidelines on naming? Just use common sense? They will
have
> to be unique.
Yes, need to be unique. This is going to follow the RPM naming
guidelines for now.
Well, sure, but say I make a container that is some web app + web
server + database. Do I call it by the app name? The web server name? A
combo?
> I guess the build system has network access and people can put
> anything in CMD lines? How can we make reproducible builds? Or
> should CMD be restricted to only some network resources.
The build system does currently but ultimately doesn't need it since
we can inject internal Fedora mirrors into the build environment that
the container is built in. Which is something we may or may not want
to do. The CMD lines likely need some guidelines around them and
should be added to the doc.
Yeah, if we aren't restricting the network for builds, anyone can do
anything in a CMD line right? and since it depends on something
outside in the net it may be changed or gone later when we rebuild.
> So it's assumed here that someone is a packager to submit
new
> container reviews? Or would we want some kind of 'containerger'
> role for people who maintainer containers?
That's up for discussion. I think they should be separate because
being well versed in creating Docker images doesn't inherently mean
someone is well versed in creating RPMs, just as the inverse is not
inherently true. I've in the past gotten some flack for that opinion
so I'd definitely like that to be opened up to more discussion.
Sure. I think seperate would be ok.
> I agree with the folks downthread we can make a bugzilla
"Container
> Review" to compliment Package Review. Unless we think we can spin
> up a review application for these (like we are still hopefully
> planning on doing for packages someday).
+1
>
> Also, we will need to make pkgdb create components for each
> container as well for people to report bugs against.
+1 - I'm honestly not sure how to go about that, I assume I need to
send a request to BZ folks somehow but how BZ is admin'd/hosted is a
bit of a black box to me. I would appreciate advisement on that.
Fedora Infrastructure has a admin user that can create components and
such under the "Fedora" Product. So, just a infrastructure ticket would
be the way to go.
kevin