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

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:15 PM Daniel Walsh <> wrote:
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 OpenContainers stack.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:14 AM Tristan Cacqueray <> wrote:

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 opencontainers?


Aric A. Renzo
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078

Podman mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Podman mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to