Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > At this point there is no known reason (at least to me) not to release > 1.10 because of kube. Is there anything tracking this outside of https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/19720 ? I need to try it myself. > So I don't see a

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 10:54 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Well a couple of points, we are currently blocked from pushing  > docker-1.10 into fedora 23, because > it will break k8s, and it looks like we could have the same problem > when  > we go to ship docker-1.10 > into rhel in May.If we sh

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > On 03/28/2016 10:45 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > >> On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:27 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are >>> primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On 03/28/2016 10:45 AM, Eric Paris wrote: On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:27 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: Hi, In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd like to keep using that. But it'd be useful to be able to quickly try out 1.10 on

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On 03/28/2016 10:51 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: On Mar 28, 2016 4:43 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" > wrote: > > We are currently thinking just to use a simple bash script. > > cat /usr/bin/docker > #!/bin/sh > . /etc/sysconfig/docker > [ -e "${DOCKERBINARY}" ] || DOCKERBINARY

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mar 28, 2016 4:43 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" 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 u

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:27 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > Hi, > > In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are > primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd like to keep using that.  But > it'd be useful to be able to quickly try out 1.10 on some of my > nodes, or in cases outs

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

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. Then we would

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

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

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

Does it make sense to configure it through alternatives? On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Andy Goldstein 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

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

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 wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 09:31 AM, Andy Goldstein wrote: > > Would this be with SCL, or some other means? > > The

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

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

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

Would this be with SCL, or some other means? On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > Hi, > > In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are > primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd like to keep using that. But it'd > be useful to be able to quickly try out

[atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

Hi, In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd like to keep using that. But it'd be useful to be able to quickly try out 1.10 on some of my nodes, or in cases outside of a Kube cluster. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? W