[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] Image naming for centos-based images



On 21/10/15 21:59, Jim Perrin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/21/2015 03:22 PM, Brian Gollaher wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 08:23 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/21/2015 01:14 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2015 11:29 PM, Honza Horak wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, there is still the risk of using names without rhel7 and
>>>>> centos7
>>>>> suffix like `centos/mariadb-100` or `rhscl/mariadb-100`, that user
>>>>> won't
>>>>> be sure what is the OS version in the container -- that is considered
>>>>> relevant in more parts of
>>>>> https://github.com/projectatomic/ContainerApplicationGenericLabels/blob/master/vendor/redhat/names.md.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That ^ is also the view I'm more leaned towards, simply because I agree
>>>>> with the points in the document above and because I don't think
>>>>> platform
>>>>> version makes any harm in the name.
>>>> Thinking about a typical example where platform matters -- let's say a
>>>> developer wants to speed-up a ruby application, so he implements a part
>>>> of it as a binary extension (written in C and using a library from the
>>>> base OS).
>>>>
>>>> The developer builds the app locally, so the rubygem links to the
>>>> particular system library (libfoo.so.2). Once our images would move from
>>>> rhel7 to rhel8, his application wouldn't work any more, because we have
>>>> libfoo.so.3 in rhel8.
>>>
>>> This level of breakage happens outside containers even in the minor
>>> point release updates. This was shown quite recently with the
>>> ImageMagick update in 6.7 [1]. To me this isn't a good enough
>>> justification (on the community side) to duplicate names. None of the
>>> fedora containers specify OS version, nor to the CentOS containers.
>>>
>>>
>>> For RHEL support and RH's own container registry it's fine and the
>>> occasional edge case makes sense there. From the community perspective,
>>> we should align with where the entire ecosystem as a whole is going.
>>>
>>> Right now we're lagging in usage, and doing things very differently from
>>> what the ecosystem expects is only going to further isolate us.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the world of containers, the application is the visible component,
>>> not the OS. It's a shift away from what we've been doing for the last
>>> decade, but it's happening.
>> Yes but our business is selling a secure, stable OS with long term
>> support so keeping the -rhel7 helps customers understand where they can
>> confidently use the container.
> 
> 
> No, we're talking about something larger here. Fedora and CentOS don't
> sell anything. This is where community and RH business interests
> diverge. If RH wants to add to the naming schema within their own
> registry, that's entirely fine and understandable. I don't see a need to
> drive a business mandate into the community space, especially when the
> larger container community is moving in the opposite direction.

also, isnt rhel7 content already delivered via a layered  private
repository anyway ?

I sincerely hope were not asking customers to rely on a bit in the name
to build trust ( anyone can push an image called -rhel7 ).

-- 
Karanbir Singh, The CentOS Project, London, UK
RH Ext. 8274455 | DID: 0044 207 009 4455


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]