[atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

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.

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Daniel J Walsh 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 pac

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

On 04/08/2016 09:17 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Daniel J Walsh > 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.

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

Right :( I meant probably if we don't sync/stick containerd/runc versions as upstream does for their 1.11 release we'll have issues running Docker itself :^( On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > On 04/08/2016 09:17 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

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 a

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

Yes, that was what I initially thought Mruanl - not sure we could ship those docker-* subpkgs though but that would definitely fix this issue since we'll ship specif versions of those tools *with* docker. However, as Dan pointed out in the Trello card those binaries should be _hidden_ under /usr/li

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

I think putting them under /usr/libexec/docker is a good idea (assuming it isn't in the $PATH) so they aren't used unintentionally. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: > Yes, that was what I initially thought Mruanl - not sure we could ship > those docker-* subpkgs though but

Re: [atomic-devel] docker-1.11 handling of runc and containerd.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:04:27AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Not sure what the policies of Fedora and Centos to have multiple > versions of basically the same executable installed on the system at > once. The Fedora policy is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Mult