On Mar 28, 2016 4:43 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We are currently thinking just to use a simple bash script.
>
> cat /usr/bin/docker
> #!/bin/sh
> . /etc/sysconfig/docker
> [ -e "${DOCKERBINARY}" ] || DOCKERBINARY=/usr/libexec/docker/docker-1.10
> exec ${DOCKERBINARY} $@
>
>
> And then allow user to change DOCKERBINARY in /etc/sysconfig/docker.How do we handle new flags? Docker won't start if, for instance, one uses new flags with 1.9 > > Then we would ship multiple docker binaries in /usr/libexec/docker/ > > One potential problem with this is handling of dockerinit, which will > thankfully disappear from the planet with docker-1.11. > > > > > On 03/28/2016 10:21 AM, SGhosh wrote: >> >> On 03/28/2016 10:16 AM, Jason DeTiberus wrote: >>> >>> Does it make sense to configure it through alternatives? >>> >> >> alternative changes the target via symlinks in /usr/bin - this is a readonly FS for rpm-ostree based builds. >> >> For normal RPM installs, alternatives is an option. >> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Andy Goldstein <agold...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok, makes sense. >>>> >>>> I'm +1 to having the ability to test out newer Docker versions. How would they ship - in 1 RPM, or multiple? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 09:31 AM, Andy Goldstein wrote: >>>>> > Would this be with SCL, or some other means? >>>>> >>>>> The SCL model/tools become more useful when dynamic linking is in play, but currently >>>>> in our usage of golang there aren't any beyond a few system ones. So I think it would >>>>> work to just have e.g. >>>>> /usr/libexec/docker-1.10 >>>>> /usr/libexec/docker-1.9 >>>>> >>>>> And choose via a config file in /etc/sysconfig/docker which to run. >>>>> >>>>> (And even if we did introduce dynamic linking, using rpath I think is saner for this case) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jason DeTiberus >> >> >
