Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
>
> RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to
> RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file,
> RWMJ> systemd notices and reloads.
>
> Well, the point is that systemd isn't
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 03:36:21PM -, g...@cfware.com wrote:
> I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing
> something. Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate
> dnf repo, put 'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people
> who are building hun
I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing something.
Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate dnf repo, put
'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people who are building
hundreds of containers that do not require systemd can use the repo con
Am 18.12.2015 um 16:36 schrieb g...@cfware.com:
I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing something.
Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate dnf repo, put
'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people who are building
hundreds of contain
Am 18.12.2015 um 15:44 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:27:33AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
For some packages "reduced capacity" because of lack of systemd.rpm
means "doesn't even get started as expected" or "crashes on
start with permission errors" or "cannot writ
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:27:33AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > >For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
> > >"Requires: systemd" i
Am 18.12.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:18:10PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
What I hear you saying is that on a system that has nothing better to do, the
primary monitoring process wakes up periodically to check on various system
aspects (cron jobs, journal rotat
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:18:10PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.12.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Neil Horman:
> >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman:
> >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>
On Thu, 17.12.15 22:22, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
> >
> > HH> The preset enablement would be missing.
> >
> > Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is insta
Hi,
> It doesn't help that there doesn't seem to be a way to use systemd's
> own container technologies to do these things in a more lightweight,
> yet compatible fashion. nspawn currently only does OS style
> containers, where you have another PID 1 inside.
Hmm?
I have a fedora 23 container o
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 17.12.15 11:28, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> > The downside is:
>> > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger
>> > - pac
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:54:52PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 05:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >>On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0
On 12/17/2015 05:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
F
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >>On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> >>>For docker containers, or containers, which don't wa
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:24:27AM +0100, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-12-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Jason L Tibbitts III :
> >> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
> >
> > RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to
> > RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit f
On 12/17/2015 04:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 16:13 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a mini
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
>
> HH> The preset enablement would be missing.
>
> Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not
> upgraded, but on a fresh install?)
No. It simply doesn't have enough
On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is prevent
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> >For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
> >"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal
> >image.
> >
> >To improve the
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:19:44PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 17.12.15 14:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > > > The downs
2015-12-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Jason L Tibbitts III :
>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
>
> RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to
> RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file,
> RWMJ> systemd notices and reloads.
>
> Well, the point is t
On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 16:13 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
> > "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal
> > image.
> >
> > To improve the s
On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal image.
To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak dependencies.
So the
Requires(
> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to
RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file,
RWMJ> systemd notices and reloads.
Well, the point is that systemd isn't running or even installed when the
daemons
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
>
> HH> The preset enablement would be missing.
>
> Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not
> upgraded, but on a fresh install?)
Couldn't it use inotify (or whate
3D XPoint
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Josh Boyer
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner:
> >>
> >> I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place.
> >> I just like to keep up with thing
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner:
>>
>> I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place.
>> I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you
>> finish worrying about all the overhead and
Am 17.12.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture
o
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman:
> >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> >>What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture
> >>outweighs the *runtime* cost. Th
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 04:00 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> If its so important to not use up that small
> additional amount of ram and cpu, so be it, but that seems like a different
> question than the one being addressed.
That is primarily what I'm talking about indeed.
The disk usage does matter
Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture
outweighs the *runtime* cost. That doesn't make sense long term - they're
different problems.
What runtime c
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what
> > the rpm
> > is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that storage,
> > r
Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner:
I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place.
I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you
finish worrying about all the overhead and things get finalized, there's
going to be so damn much RAM and proces
I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place. I
just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you finish
worrying about all the overhead and things get finalized, there's going to
be so damn much RAM and processing power no one will care. Kind of like
devel
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what the
> rpm
> is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that storage,
> rpm
> dependencies shouldn't really be a big deal, because you know you're g
> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
HH> The preset enablement would be missing.
Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not
upgraded, but on a fresh install?)
- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fe
Am 17.12.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Neil Horman:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
OK, you want numbers
full featured VM running authoritative DNS for hundrets
of zones while bind and rsyslog would be enough
__
whole operating system: 795 M
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> FWIW, In freight[1], I assume systemd is a member of every container,
> and that services are started via unit files in the container. Its
> made generating containers unbelievably easy, in that it doesn't
> require any additional knowe
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.12.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> >
> >
> >Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> >>On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16P
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:25:17AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently.
> > If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put
> > systemd in a base con
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > > Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you
> > > are intend
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02:43AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If
> > you
> > build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a
> > base
On Thu, December 17, 2015 8:08 am, Mustafa Muhammad wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I would question why its nece
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:07:34AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> Let's be clear - from my perspective systemd's design is awesome
>> for the *real* pid 1. AFAIK no one here is talking about changing anything
>> related to that. We're jus
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:07:34AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> Let's be clear - from my perspective systemd's design is awesome
> for the *real* pid 1. AFAIK no one here is talking about changing anything
> related to that. We're just talking about supporting microservice
> containers without a
Am 17.12.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:57:26PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > If, instead, every package at the base level would take modularity as a
> > baseline principle, we'd be in a lot better and more flexible state.
> > > Does it have such heavy otherwise unneeded deps?
> > In some cases, yes. In
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > >
> > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently.
> If you
> > > build your co
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Because microservice containers are a valid goal, and allowing them
to be more minimal while still pulling in glibc etc. is useful (from
the start of this thread).
> Note that PID 1 is in more ways different than just reaping
> processe
Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't
always need, but why is this stu
Am 17.12.2015 um 16:54 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
What is cleaning up /tmp
for those things?
You bind mount the container's /tmp to a host /tmp/container-$uuid
for example.
Well, and what sets up all the rest listed in tmpfi
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't
> > always need, but why is this stuff that matters? Is it *that* large?
>
> "Ship
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you
> > are intend to run as PID 1 in them instead?
>
> Nothing, if the pid namespace did zombie
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't
> always need, but why is this stuff that matters? Is it *that* large?
"Ship" and "require in the most minimal application-only install case"
are different. And
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:17:37PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, this I think goes to the core of things: What is Fedora supposed
> to be? I always thought it was supposed to be an OS, meaning a
> provider of certain APIs, resources and functionality that apps can
> rely on. tmpfiles and t
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you
> are intend to run as PID 1 in them instead?
Nothing, if the pid namespace did zombie collection in the kernel,
you don't need a separate init.
> What is cleaning u
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:25, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently.
> > If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put
> > systemd in
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:27, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:18:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfiles,
> > > systemd-sysusers and other utilities to separate sub-package called
> > > s
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:18:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfiles,
> > systemd-sysusers and other utilities to separate sub-package called
> > systemd-tools. We should probably revisit this idea.
> Why? Do you have any technic
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently.
> If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put
> systemd in a base container and layer other applications in child
> containers that inherit f
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If
> > you
> > build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a
> > b
On Thu, 17.12.15 14:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > > The downside is:
> > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not t
On Thu, 17.12.15 11:28, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > The downside is:
> > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger
> > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be
On Thu, 17.12.15 10:43, Harald Hoyer (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
> For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
> "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a
> minimal image.
What does this even mean? What are you actually "fixing" with this?
Wh
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If you
> build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a
> base
> container and layer other applications in child containers that inherit from
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:36:05PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > > The downside is:
> > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trig
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > The downside is:
> > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger
> > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be
> >
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43:32AM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
> "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal
> image.
>
> To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak depe
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> To prevent having a non-bootable system (not container), we could let the
> kernel.spec have a Requires on systemd.
The kernel has had a Requires on systemd for quite some time. It is
now in kernel-core, but you cannot boot a system without
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> The downside is:
> - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger
> - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be
> converted
IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfi
On 17.12.2015 11:15, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
>
> HH> To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak
> HH> dependencies. So the
>
> I'm not sure I see the point. The dependencies are there so that the
> scriptlets work. If the scriptlets
> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes:
HH> To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak
HH> dependencies. So the
I'm not sure I see the point. The dependencies are there so that the
scriptlets work. If the scriptlets don't actually need to work then
there's no point in having t
For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current
"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal image.
To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak dependencies.
So the
Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requir
73 matches
Mail list logo
