Hi, On 17-05-21, Paul Spooren wrote: > Hello, > > after some back and forth I'd like to request some more opinions on what > kind of Docker containers to offer containing the OpenWrt rootfs. This is > not about the SDK or ImageBuilder Docker containers. > > tl;dr: > > Should we ship `slim` containers only, running a OpenWrt shell (ash) and > nothing more? Whoever wants services to run (e.g. ubus) should run > additional containers and glue them together via mounts? Or should we run > /sbin/init or `procd` to have a *OpenWrt-like experience*, with LuCI, ubusd > and friends.
It's a matter of use-cases: what do people want to do with OpenWrt in docker? I see two main use-cases: 1) dev / testing 2) running as an actual "virtualized" router I use docker from time to time to quickly test the userspace (musl, busybox, uclient, etc), so it's basically the first use-case and I just need a shell for this. This is the way most "basic" Docker containers work. That being said, my students used Docker for LuCI dev, and I think it relied on the fact that services (procd, ubusd, uhttpd) were already running in the container: https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/projet-ter-m1-wic-openwrt/luci/-/blob/docker/docker-compose.yml https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/projet-ter-m1-wic-openwrt/luci/-/blob/docker/docker/Dockerfile Maybe we should provide the "official" image with just a shell, and then another image with running services? The second use-case (running as an actual router) does not really fit the way docker works, especially with networking. For this use-case I think it's much better to run OpenWrt in LXC or as a VM, and some people actually do that. But if people really want to use docker for this, they can do it with their own Dockerfile or docker-compose setup. Baptiste
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel