I have championed more the remove of
"docker" from the syntax for a while. So I would be for supporting
something other then Dockerfile. Containerfile would be my
choice. Of course we would want to also support Dockerfile, since
this is the predominance of users.
Perhaps we look for Containerfile by
default and if it does not exists, fall back to Dockerfile.
Pr's for the community would be
appreciated for this support.
On 9/13/19 12:01 PM, Aric Renzo wrote:
Thanks for your response. I'm not aware if anyone
has approached the OCI about it. Maybe I can hop on their
mailing lists or open a github issue and see. I thought about
using something like: Podmanfile, Podfile, or Buildahfile, but
I think that kind of defeats the purpose of creating a format
that's project-agnostic. I think Containerfile might be general
enough that any project can adopt it be it Docker, Podman, or
some other future project that provides an interface into the
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:48 Aric Renzo wrote:
> I am open to thoughts and feedback regarding this. I'm
wondering if using
> a standard like this while great for Podman/Buildah to
adopt is more of an
> open container initiative community discussion as well?
I'm curious about
> what the Podman community thinks?
Containerfile sounds like a great idea. I sometime name those
Buildahfile and run `buildah bud -f Buildahfile`.
Has the Dockerfile specification ever been proposed to
Aric A. Renzo
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
Podman mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com