I think if allowed, then we should atleast ship a newer version of runc as a separate package. The one that docker needs could be shipped with the docker package as docker-runc. (We could do the same for containerd if we expect usage of it outside of docker.)
Thanks, Mrunal On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Daniel J Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote: > In docker-1.11 docker is going to be using a new daemon, containerd, as > well as runc. However docker is forcing a link between containerd and > runc. During the building of docker, docker is actually pulling the > containerd and runc packages currently installed on the box and check > summing them. Then docker refuses to run unless these exact versions of > containerd and runc are installed on the box. Docker does change the name > of these executables to docker-containerd and docker-runc. > > As we look to package these tools for Fedora, Centos and RHEL, we have to > decide whether or not we want to package multiple versions of runc so that > we can develop these at different rates or lock the versions together as > docker wants. We could patch out the checksum check and rely on rpm to > make sure the current version of docker has a late enough version of > containerd and runc, to be supported. > > Not sure what the policies of Fedora and Centos to have multiple versions > of basically the same executable installed on the system at once. > > Dan > >
