4:48 p.m.
Hello Everyone,
I am fairly new the Podman community. My name is Aric Renzo and I am a
DevOps engineer based on Charlotte NC. I have a passion for container
technology and even wrote a book on the now semi-defunct Ansible Container
project. I've been watching Podman, CRI-O, and Open Container Initiative
projects for quite some time and I am quite impressed with Podman and
Buildah providing a fantastic interface for launching Kubernetes style pods
and managing them almost exactly like traditional Docker. The community
has done an absolutely wonderful job in shifting the mindsets of developers
and engineers away from "Docker containers" and "Docker images"
towards a
more general, platform agnostic, "containers" and "container images".
Especially since Docker simply builds and runs OCI container images.
I am writing this email in regards to an issue I opened up on the Buildah
repo yesterday: https://github.com/containers/buildah/issues/1853 .
Essentially, my idea is that if we keep using "Dockerfiles" and
"docker-compose.yml" files to build and test images, it will continue to be
an uphill battle to shift perception away from Docker being the
be-all-end-all of containers. After all, why would someone want to use
Podman to build their Dockerfiles, or CRI-O to run them when they can just
keep using Docker instead? This is why I would suggest using a more vendor
neutral, "Containerfile" and "container-compose.yml" vernacular
instead.
After all, Podman and even Docker do not build "Docker images". They build
OCI container images. Hence, it does not make much sense to keep using
"Dockerfile" or "docker-compose.yml" files.
However, since I opened this issue, I have been thinking that while this
would be a relatively easy code change to get Podman/Buildah to recognize
the presence of "Containerfile" inside a repo and build it, this is far
more of a cultural shift more than anything else. I think that if the
community decides to go this direction, it would be helpful for Podman and
other OCI projects to evangelize and promote a new standard for setting up
the general instruction file to build and ship open container images.
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?
Thank you for your time. I'm excited to meet and interact with everyone
in the community.
Thanks,
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
5:14 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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?
-Tristan
6:01 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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 <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com>
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?
-Tristan
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
6:15 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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
<tdecacqu(a)redhat.com <mailto:tdecacqu@redhat.com>> 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?
-Tristan
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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
Den fre 13 sep. 2019 kl 18:02 skrev Aric Renzo <aricrenzo(a)gmail.com>:
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 <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com>
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?
>
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
Liking the clarity of calling it a containerfile I must admit.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:15 PM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh(a)redhat.com> 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 <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com>
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?
>
> -Tristan
>
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
6:52 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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(a)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(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
6:54 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, 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.
eh, containerfile is fine.
rday
6:58 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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(a)crashcourse.ca <mailto: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(a)lists.podman.io
<mailto:podman@lists.podman.io>
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
<mailto:podman-leave@lists.podman.io>
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642 <sip:8436097642>
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
7:19 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.podman.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
>
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
11:04 p.m.
New subject: Containerfile in addition to Dockerfiles for building container images
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.podman.io
>> To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
>>
>
>
> --
> *Aric A. Renzo*
> 15511 Troubadour Lane
> Huntersville, NC 28078
> 843-609-7642
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
>
--
*Aric A. Renzo*
15511 Troubadour Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
843-609-7642
_______________________________________________
Podman mailing list -- podman(a)lists.podman.io
To unsubscribe send an email to podman-leave(a)lists.podman.io
--
--
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Product Management - Containers, Red Hat Enterprise Linux & OpenShift
Email: smccarty(a)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
1681
days inactive
1681
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Anders F Björklund -
Aric Renzo -
Bryan Hepworth -
Daniel Walsh -
Robert P. J. Day -
Scott McCarty -
Tom Sweeney -
Tristan Cacqueray