Samuel Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
Hello,
I am facing the same problem, but I have to use docker-compose.
I guess there are no plans to fix this atm? :/ Or did you find
any help regarding this problem?
Am 17.01.2024 um 21:53, Rodrigo Morales <[email protected]>
schrieb:Rodrigo Morales <[email protected]> writes:
Does anyone know what could be the problem?
I found this thread [1] on help-guix from 2019 where a user
reports
having errores with docker-compose. A user replies:
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
The root of this problem is that our docker-compose package is
very
old: it was added in January 2016(!), and has never been updated
since. I guess that proves how unneccessary Docker is once
you've
discovered Guix… ducks
#+END_QUOTE
Furthermore, I noticed that the version of docker-compose is
1.29.2 and
upstream [2] is at 2.12.0, so even if I fix this problem. I'll
be using
an old version of docker-compose. For my use case, it would be
more
useful to use the latest version of docker-compose, so if I
wanted to
use docker-compose under Guix, I would need for me to write a
Guix
package for that version.
Note also that this is a Docker Compose v1->v2 upgrade. The newer
version is completely different from v1, it’s a plugin that
integrates with the Docker CLI, so you run `docker compose' rather
than `docker-compose'. We likely need a completely new package
for it.
I have one question: The user above states that Docker is
unnecessary
once you have discovered Guix. I have been using Guix for around
6
months, but I don't see how I could use Guix for running a web
server on
a container that uses node.js and postgresql. The reason why I
initially
wanted to use docker is because I find it more convenient to run
a web
server with node.js and postgresql. Any information on this
topic is
appreciated.
I continue to find both Guix and Docker useful. While they have
some overlapping goals, I don’t believe either can replace the
other.
The closest thing to Docker Compose I’m aware of that you can do
with pure Guix is create an operating-system with the services you
want to run, then use `guix system image -t docker
my-machine-definition.scm' to bundle it as a Docker image. This
will bring up a container with the base Guix and those services
running inside.
This setup lacks some niceties which Compose has:
Everything seems to run in the same namespace[1], so a compromise
of one service is more likely to compromise the whole system.
Compose is more resistant to this, since each service runs in its
own namespace (that is, container). I don’t know of a Guix
equivalent for the Compose style of multi-container setup.
I haven’t compared, but I strongly suspect the image sizes are
larger than an equivalent plain Docker image, due to having the
base Guix inside them, whereas many Docker images use (or have the
option of) an Alpine base.
It can only run things with a Guix package and Shepherd service to
manage it.
Updates are likely slower than vendor-provided Docker images.
It’s also a more involved setup -- you have to write the config,
and build the image, and load it, and run it. In fact, I have yet
to actually make a system image that works *at all*. Compose is
dead simple in comparison.
— Ian
[1]: At least, if Shepherd can run services in their own
namespaces, like Docker can, the manual is silent on the topic.
