Hi guys, I haven't had much time this week due to work and now I am overwhelmed!
Yesterday, as Dreamcat4 has noticed, I've been working in a version that gathers all the ideas covered here. All, * I already converted bash init scripts into execline and make use of s6-utils instead of 'linux' ones to facilitate usage in another base images. * It's important to have just _one_ codebase, this would help focusing improvements and problems in one place. I extracted all the elements I thought would be useful in a container environment. So, if you all feel comfortable we could start discussing bugs, improvements or whatever there. I called this project/repo container-s6-overlay-builder ( https://github.com/glerchundi/container-s6-overlay-builder). * Now, and after abstracting 's6-overlay', using ubuntu with s6 is a matter of extracting a tarball. container-base is using it already: https://github.com/glerchundi/container-base/blob/master/Dockerfile#L73-L75. * To sum up, we all agree with this. It is already implemented in the overlay: - Case #1: Common case, start supervision tree up. docker run image - Case #2: Would start a shell without the supervision tree running docker run -ti --entrypoint="" base /bin/sh - Case #3: Would start a shell with the supervision tree up. docker run -ti image /bin/sh Dreamcat4, * Having a tarball with all the needed base elements to get s6 working is the way to go! Laurent, * Having a github mirror repo is gonna help spreading the word! * Although three init phases are working now I need your help with those scripts, probably a lot of mistakes were done... - https://github.com/glerchundi/container-s6-overlay-builder/tree/master/rootfs/etc/s6/.s6-init/init-stage1 - https://github.com/glerchundi/container-s6-overlay-builder/tree/master/rootfs/etc/s6/.s6-init/init-stage2 - https://github.com/glerchundi/container-s6-overlay-builder/tree/master/rootfs/etc/s6/.s6-init/init-stage3 * I've chosen /etc/s6/.s6-init as the destination folder for the init scripts, would you like me to change? John, About github organization, I think this is not the place to discuss about it. I really like the idea and I'm open to discuss it but first things first, lets focus on finishing this first approach! Still, simple-d and micro-d are good names but are tightly coupled to docker *-d, and rocket being the relatively the new buzzword (kubernetes is going to support it) maybe we need to reconsider them. rgds, 2015-02-28 18:57 GMT+01:00 John Regan <[email protected]>: > Sweet. And yeah, as Laurent mentioned in the other email, it's the > weekend. Setting dates for this kind of stuff is hard to do, I just > work on this in my free time. It's done when it's done. > > I also agree that s6 is *not* a docker-specific tool, nor should it > be. I'm thankful that Laurent's willing to listen to any ideas we > might have re: s6 development, but like I said, the goal is *not* > "make s6 a docker-specific tool" > > There's still a few high-level decisions to be made, too, before we > really start any work: > > 1. Goals: > * Are we going to make a series of s6 baseimages (like one > based on Ubuntu, another on CentOS, Alpine, and so on)? > * Should we pick a base distro and focus on creating a series of > platform-oriented images, aimed more at developers (ie, a PHP image, a > NodeJS image, etc)? > * Or should be focus on creating a series of service-oriented > images, ie, an image for running GitLab, an image for running an > XMPP server, etc? > > Figuring out the overall, high-level focus early will be really > helpful in the long run. > > Options 2 and 3 are somewhat related - you can't really get to 3 > (create service-oriented images) without getting through 2 (make > platform-oriented images) anyway. > > It's not like a goal would be set in stone, either. If more guys want > to get on board and help, we could alway sit down and re-evaluate. > With more manpower, you could get into doing a whole series of > distro-based, service-oriented images (ie, a Ubuntu XMPP server as > well as an Alpine XMPP server). > > But given we're just a few guys, setting a straightforward small focus > is probably the way to go. I would vote for either creating a series > of baseimages, oriented towards other image-makers, or pick Alpine as > a base, and focus on making small and efficient service-oriented > images (ie, a 10MB XMPP service, something like that) aimed at > sysadmins/users. > > But I'm open to any of those options, or others, so long as it's > within the realm of possibility for just a few people working in their > free time. > > 1. Should be form a GitHub org, and what should it be called? > > I vote yes, I'll go ahead and make it if you want. > > For the org name, I was thinking about starting a series of Alpine > images aimed at users (like I said, 10MB chat service) under the org > name "micro-d" (as in, Micro Docker containers), already. If that's the > focus we go with, then that's probably a pretty OK name. > > If we go with doing a series of simple, easy-to-use baseimages aimed > at other imagemakers, then probably something like "simple-d" (Simple > Docker containers). > > Again, open to suggestions, those are just my initial ideas. The one > thing I would advise against is using s6 in the name, since that > would imply it's a project under the skarnet.org umbrella, which I > don't think this is. It's outside that scope. We can promote how much > we love s6 all we want in the docs, and blog posts, and so on, but > we *shouldn't* do things like call our init "s6-init", name the image > "s6-alpine", stuff like that. > > Once we figure out the high-level goals, we can set out a few more > structural-type things. > > -John >
