Hello, On Thu 07 Nov 2024 at 11:03am +01, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Sean, > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 10:37:22AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Helmut, I think my conversation with you is somewhat verging into >> detailed design work. We don't want the TC to be trying to decide >> exactly what sort of containers we want to support; we just want to be >> sure we're not definitely blocking anything we don't want to >> definitively block. > > I respectfully disagree with your characterization. I used the podman > example to demonstrate actual use of the underlying concept that a > container runtime would be responsible for providing logging services > and concluded that a dependency on logging services would no longer be > expressible in our dependency system. To me, this is not yet design > work. Rather we would be shifting to a state where logging services are > always assumed available and all that we would continue to maintain is > the exclusion mechanism. I read your previous message again and I think I understand the example a bit better now. So, these super-slim containers don't have systemd installed at all, so systemd can't provide the virtual package inside them, right? Also, sorry -- what exactly do you mean when you say "the exclusion mechanism"? Thanks. -- Sean Whitton
