I like the generalization of "Containerfile", if only to remove Docker.
It would probably not mean a big change, since you are normally working with directories (or explicitly named files, using parameters like the -f)
So you could just rename the Dockerfile to Containerfile, and the "build" commands would continue to work like they did before (except with Docker).
We are trying to get away from using Docker and docker-env to build for minikube, and something like this would be a natural fit for it (and CRI-O).
There is this choice of --container-runtime when starting up the VM, and then it will feed your instructions to _either_ command (docker or podman).
Buildahfile sounds wrong, since it is only valid for the subset of BUD.
/Anders
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 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?