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 > processes... For example for PID 1, SIGTERM usually is a request for > reexecution, and SIGINT a request for reboot, while for non-PID1 > processes these are requests for termination and cancelling... I don't think anyone really cares about the traditional PID 1 signal handling in a Kubernetes cluster, it's just not used for administration. > Well, that's certainly a opinion on this. I certainly disagree. It > would essentially mean giving up on much what makes up an OS > though, in particular, about half of whatthe packaging guidelines say > what packages shall use and rely on. Indeed, the current packaging model is designed for a world where all software is installed on the host. For a lot of software (postgres, nginx), we need to support both. But there's also a lot of software that is container-only, and I expect this to increase. This will be part of Dockerfile and other container formats that we include as part of Fedora. > If you want to replace systemd functionality with Docker functionality 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 pid 1 in the container namespace. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
