On 7 July 2016 at 19:35, Lalatendu Mohanty <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/07/2016 10:37 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >> On 7 July 2016 at 17:55, Clayton Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Jimmi Dyson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7 July 2016 at 17:36, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hardy, Lala and the rest of the ADB team are going to investigate this >>>>> over the next few weeks (whether we can replace the ADB infra with >>>>> minishift). >>>>> >>>>> For the product version it must be based on something that we >>>>> productise (which currently is RHEL or Atomic AFAIK) - doing it on top >>>>> of something like Alpine is not an option. >>>> >>>> You can see what it's built from at >>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/boot2docker/boot2docker/~/dockerfile/ . Don't >>>> worry about the FROM debian:jessie - that's just to create the builder >>>> image. You can see the minimal stuff it's actually installing in the >>>> final ISO. >>>> >>>>> I would also worry about having a radically different upstream from >>>>> the product version, as I think this can cause bugs, but I'll leave >>>>> this one to the team to figure out :-) >>>>> >>>>> I've also asked Ian a few times if we can try to build smaller images >>>>> - something to keep trying for ;-) >>>> >>>> I don't see why we couldn't have the equivalent of boot2docker.iso >>>> image that minikube uses: basically a kernel & docker.... that's it. >>>> Sure we can use a RHEL/CentOS kernel, right? Just please not the whole >>>> RHEL install ;) >>> >>> >>> Agreed. I think Pete and I are just saying that we need to make an >>> effort >>> to fix the actual problem (we don't have a small ISO for RHEL/CentOS that >>> represents our strengths in containers), and that we should also be >>> taking >>> those steps in parallel. >> >> Exactly. I also still don't understand why we don't ship Atomic Host >> as the default OS in the container runtime portion of the CDK - this >> seems like an obvious thing to do . > > > I think we should incorporate container runtime portion of Atomic host in > CDK. It makes more sense in current context as we are running OpenShift and > Kubernetes as containers. Just to add bit of history , when we started CDK > 2.0 we were not sure if using Atomic host is a good idea as the file system > of Atomic host is read-only except /etc and /var. > > Also we need to take decision around if we want to keep the Kubernetes > single node setup relevant in CDK context as my recent understanding is that > we are encouraging users to use OpenShift for Kubernetes specific usage.
I would suggest raising this again in about 4 weeks if you haven't got a decision - we aren't quite there yet. > > Thanks, > Lala > >> _______________________________________________ >> Devtools mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devtools mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools _______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
