I like the thought too. That said, I think there are few major options:

1. Docker Inc. would have to donate the Dockerfile syntax to the OCI project. Who knows, it's a possibility, but I have my doubts: http://crunchtools.com/docker-support/
2. Create a new syntax, and donate it to the OCI
3. Copy the current Dockerfile syntax (aka fork it), and donate it to the OCI
4. Create a new syntax, that is project based and not part of the OCI (least favorite)

My 2c....

Best Regards
Scott M

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:20 PM Aric Renzo <aricrenzo@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that has to do with it being more of a cultural change rather than a code change. I think as long as Podman/Buildah support both filenames by default,it would be the users choice about what to name the files.  If they wanted to make their project less  visually tied to Docker, they could use Containerfile, or if they wanted to keep things as-is and slowly move things over (or never move things), that's fine too. I think it'll be up to us to promote the use of "Containerfile" as a specification for using this format in a vendor-neutral way. The OCI folks in their IRC channel pointed me to https://buildpacks.io/    as a CNCF project for creating a abstracted universal build standard for OCI images.  I think it's a great idea, but I really couldn't see many organizations being able to quickly turn over their container infrastructure to use buildpacks as opposed to the Dockerfile-type format.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:58 PM Tom Sweeney <tsweeney@redhat.com> wrote:
I like the thought of changing Dockerfile to another name.  My one concern is trying to figure out how much of a pain point it would be for people with existing Dockerfiles to rename them.  Yeah, they could use '--file Dockerfile' to make it work, but that might be painful too if they've a bunch of scripts buried away without that option already specified. 

But perhaps I'm being over concerned.

t


On 09/13/2019 12:52 PM, Aric Renzo wrote:
My gut instinct is that "imagefile" has a connotation with media-type image file formats. Might be confusing especially for non-technical users when talking about container concepts. Open to it, if others disagree.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:32 PM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, Bryan Hepworth wrote:

> Liking the clarity of calling it a containerfile I must admit.

  would it not more properly be called an "imagefile"?

rday
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman@lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave@lists.podman.io


--
Aric A. Renzo
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078


_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman@lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave@lists.podman.io


_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman@lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave@lists.podman.io


--
Aric A. Renzo
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman@lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave@lists.podman.io


--
-- 
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Product Management - Containers, Red Hat Enterprise Linux & OpenShift
Email: smccarty@redhat.com
Phone: 312-660-3535
Cell: 330-807-1043
Web: http://crunchtools.com

Have questions on Red Hat UBI? Check out the official FAQ: https://red.ht/2yaUcez