On Wednesday, 27.01.2016 at 07:11, David Halls wrote: > > > > Related question #1 that came up while working on this -- should I > > implement rumprun-bake functionality to record/a tool to query the binaries > > baked into a unikernel image? Without this information the user cannot > > specify rc[].bin. > > > > In multi-bake images, there will likely be information other than just the > name required in order to run it. For example, how to chain them, what the > command line options are, what env vars it supports. I think the name > should be specified along with those, outside the image - in a free-text > description or some manifest format.
Agreed. For the time being, let's just go with packages documenting their use of multibake in README, etc. A more structured solution would be nice, but that's a discussion more about the higher-level orcherstation/distribution of unikernels, which, as Antti writes, is a separate project on its own -- let's keep this thread on the topic of the config spec. > > > > Related question #2 -- rumprun-bake sets binname[x] to the basename of > > binary X. Do we need syntax to allow the user to specify binname? > > > > Is this just to avoid conflicts? Yes. Rumprun-bake could do that, I just hadn't done it in my initial implementation since implementing "is this set of names unique" in bash is a PITA.
