On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > On 12/01/2015 10:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:26:19AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:00:55AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > >>> On 12/01/2015 08:50 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > >>>> The "container" keyword, being generic, would have its meaning expanded > >>>> to cover new container systems as they come along. This means if a > >>>> service script has the keyword "-container" it will not work under any > >>>> current or future container systems. On the other hand, adding > >>>> "container" means it will work under all of them. > >>> > >>> If it's similar to how license groups work, then there is room for doing > >>> things like "-@container docker" which means no containers except > >>> docker, or "@container -docker" which means all containers except > >>> docker. Keyword groups can be implemented using a simple expansion > >>> mechanism, just like license groups. > >> > >> Keyword groups are an interesting idea; I'll think about this approach. > > > > One question that comes to mind is,, who defines which keywords go in > > each group? > > > > The containers or virtualization systems themselves can be autodetected > > so they are the same everywhere, but keyword groups are not able to be > > detected. > > The groups should go in a configuration file somewhere. For example, > they could be defined in rc.conf with a variable setting like this: > > rc_keyword_group_container="docker lxc openvz vserver"
If we keep the keywords as they are, I am starting to think we can just add a container keyword that would be valid for all of the containers; that way a script could be set up to work for no containers or for specific ones like we are talking about. OpenRC currently doesn't do any detection of virtual machines, so maybe that could be another expansion of this -- add a keyword "vm" and keywords for the virtual machines. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
