On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Daniel J Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 04/08/2016 03:42 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> 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#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name >> >> tl;dr is that it's okay, but it's deone through the hack of putting the >> version in the package name. This works fine when it's infrequent, but >> is a pain otherwise, especially since each new version needs to go >> through package review separately, gets its own repo in dist-git, and a >> whole bunch of other overhead. >> >> We have "some reasonable way of dealing with different package >> versions" on the deliverables from >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_Phase >> , >> so possibly we'll have a better answer soon, but that's where we are >> now. >> >> Ok so for now, lets package the docker-runc and docker-containerd in the > docker package and use them under > /usr/libexec/docker. Lets not package containerd until someone figures a > use case of it outside of docker in parallel > with docker. We will continue to ship runc outside of docker at its own > independent package. > Ack, I still have to figure out if docker works correctly having docker-containerd, docker-runc and the others under /usr/libexec/docker (because I think it's not in $PATH) Otherwise we could patch upstream docker also to not hardcode binaries strings and paths -- Antonio Murdaca IRC: runcom GPG: 0DE936B9
