[gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 458 bytes --]

All,

I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
container-related utilities.

Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.

Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 624 bytes --]

On 14/06/17 17:11, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
> container-related utilities.
>
> Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
> app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
>
> Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
Textbook questions -

- Application/package names
- draft ebuilds

Cheers.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 862 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 861 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 05:16:55PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 14/06/17 17:11, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
> > container-related utilities.
> >
> > Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
> > app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
> >
> > Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> > If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> > packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > William
> >
> Textbook questions -
> 
> - Application/package names
> - draft ebuilds

I don't have ebuilds yet, but the packages are:

https://github.com/projectatomic/skopeo 
https://github.com/openSUSE/umoci 

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 804 bytes --]

On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
> container-related utilities.
> 
> Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
> app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
> 
> Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
> 

You don't create a new category for two packages. Do you have more use
cases for it? I think usually people provide a fair number of existing
packages that are in different categories to prove the necessity
of a new category.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 988 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1240 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 07:00:05PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
> > container-related utilities.
> > 
> > Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
> > app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
> > 
> > Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> > If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> > packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
> > 
> 
> You don't create a new category for two packages. Do you have more use
> cases for it? I think usually people provide a fair number of existing
> packages that are in different categories to prove the necessity
> of a new category.

I know this, that is why I brought it up actually. I'm working on these
ebuilds and was going to pre-empt a package move for them by opening up
a discussion about a category now.

There are multiple packages under app-emulation that are container
related vs emulation/vm related that could be moved and there is one at
least under dev-util (dev-util/docker-ls).


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:06 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 07:00:05PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
>> > container-related utilities.
>> >
>> > Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
>> > app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
>> >
>> > Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
>> > If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
>> > packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
>> >
>>
>> You don't create a new category for two packages. Do you have more use
>> cases for it? I think usually people provide a fair number of existing
>> packages that are in different categories to prove the necessity
>> of a new category.
>
> I know this, that is why I brought it up actually. I'm working on these
> ebuilds and was going to pre-empt a package move for them by opening up
> a discussion about a category now.
>
> There are multiple packages under app-emulation that are container
> related vs emulation/vm related that could be moved and there is one at
> least under dev-util (dev-util/docker-ls).
>

Some likely candidates for the new category (excerpt from eix -S container):

* app-emulation/docker
     Description:         The core functions you need to create Docker
images and run Docker containers

* app-emulation/docker-compose
     Description:         Multi-container orchestration for Docker

* app-emulation/docker-gc
     Description:         Docker garbage collection of containers and images

* app-emulation/docker-machine
     Description:         Machine management for a container-centric world

* app-emulation/docker-proxy
     Description:         Docker container networking

* app-emulation/docker-runc
     Description:         runc container cli tools (docker fork)

* app-emulation/flannel
     Description:         An etcd backed network fabric for containers

* app-emulation/lxc
     Description:         LinuX Containers userspace utilities

* app-emulation/lxd
     Description:         Fast, dense and secure container management

* app-emulation/rkt
     Description:         rkt is an App Container runtime for Linux

* app-emulation/runc
     Description:         runc container cli tools

* app-emulation/s6-overlay
     Description:         an s6-based init system for containers

* dev-util/docker-distribution-pruner
     Description:         Clean all old container revisions from registry

* sys-apps/lmctfy
     Description:         Linux application container management from Google

* sys-cluster/singularity
     Description:         Application containers for Linux

* sys-cluster/vzctl
     Description:         OpenVZ ConTainers control utility

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On śro, 2017-06-14 at 11:11 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
>> container-related utilities.
>>
>> Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
>> app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
>>
>> Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
>> If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
>> packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
>>
>
> You don't create a new category for two packages. Do you have more use
> cases for it? I think usually people provide a fair number of existing
> packages that are in different categories to prove the necessity
> of a new category.

I'm on the fence about whether we should create a new category, but
presumably other things like docker/etc would end up in there as well.

"Emulation" is a bit of a generic category right now.  We don't
distinguish between actual emulation vs virtualization or
containerization.  I'm not sure if there is value in making that
distinction, or if we did if even those three categories would be
sufficient.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[Sergei Trofimovich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:11:49 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I am about to write two new ebuilds for packages for Gentoo that are for
> container-related utilities.
> 
> Currently, the best place to put them would be app-emulation, or
> app-misc or dev-util, probably app-emulation would be my first choice.
> 
> Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?

Sounds good.

Perhaps worth defining with more precision what are the target
ebuilds for that (in <longdescription> format) . Something like:
    "Tools to manage _linux_ container environments like docker/flatpack/snap/lxc"

Too narrow? Too broad?

-- 

  Sergei

[-- Attachment #2: Цифровая подпись OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On 06/14/2017 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?

Personally I don't see much value in introducing a new category at this
point. Package moves always introduce a certain degree of complexity
(e.g requiring maintainers in main tree and other repositories to update
dependency specifications), is there really value from introducing this
category vs the existing one? in the general case I'd like to see less
categories rather than more.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1301 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:42:33AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 06/14/2017 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category?
> > If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these
> > packages then we can look into moving other packages to it?
> 
> Personally I don't see much value in introducing a new category at this
> point. Package moves always introduce a certain degree of complexity
> (e.g requiring maintainers in main tree and other repositories to update
> dependency specifications), is there really value from introducing this
> category vs the existing one? in the general case I'd like to see less
> categories rather than more.

In the main tree, imo, updating the dependencies should be handled by
the person doing the package move, so it shouldn't affect other
maintainers.

As far as overlays go, it is true that overlay maintainers might have to 
adjust things, but overlay maintainers are on their own anyway.

I see categories as a way to classify packages. If a category is too
broad more categories should be created if possible. I can think of two
other categories in the tree that may be able to be cleaned up in the
future, but it would mean more categories.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]