[Container-tools] Version incompatibility of Docker client and server - projectatomic/vagrant-adbinfo issue #85

[Praveen Kumar]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Bama Charan Kundu <bkundu at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse at redhat.com>
> To: "Bama Charan Kundu" <bkundu at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Lalatendu Mohanty" <lmohanty at redhat.com>, container-tools at redhat.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:55:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Container-tools] Version incompatibility of Docker client and server - projectatomic/vagrant-adbinfo issue #85
>
> On 4 Feb 2016, at 8:02, Bama Charan Kundu wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is to package equivalent docker client in the ADB box (
> > for Linux, OSX, Windows) and then we can expose these binaries through
> > a
> > http server or equivalent.
>
> Is there a working docker native windows client yet ?
>
> AFAIK, I did not see docker native windows client, they have shifted
> to docker toolbox. This tool box does all the setup related to docker
> including boot2docker.

Check https://github.com/docker/docker/releases , so docker does
provide release client for different operating system. You can
directly download binary and try that out with ADB (which contains
docker 1.8.2). Now adbinfo can check available version and if mismatch
then download required version. I tested Linux client v1.8.2 and it
worked as expected.

# wget https://get.docker.com/builds/Linux/x86_64/docker-1.8.2 -o
/opt/docker-1.8.2
# chmod +x /opt/docker-1.8.2
# eval "$(vagrant adbinfo)"
# /opt/docker-1.8.2 images

>
>
> btw. on the topic of supporting multiple versions - the way we do it
> in Eclipse is that the spotify client we use don't perform the version
> check.
>
> So for now we survive on "luck".
>
> Does this mean that the API server of docker engine supports the older
> native clients also?
> They are restricting to use older docker client by version check?
>
> Down the road we might have to extend the client to make it handle
> differences between versions or in worst case bundle multiple client
> jars to be able to target both the slower moving CDK and the actual
> docker which most will use in the community.
>
> Yes, I believe we should not be dependent on the docker teams design.
> we should put this in a way to work completely on our architecture.
> I am going through the vagrant options we can adopt, trying to get
> through this.

As long as we have a supported docker client available, I believe we
should be using that in our tooling.


-- 
Praveen Kumar
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kumarpraveen
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://kumar-pravin.blogspot.com