Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

still some docker-storage-setup* files present #211

Open
lsm5 opened this issue Feb 26, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

still some docker-storage-setup* files present #211

lsm5 opened this issue Feb 26, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@lsm5
Copy link

lsm5 commented Feb 26, 2017

I see there are still 3 docker-storage-setup* files present in the repo. Any reason for not doing the rename for those? Too docker specific?

Also, should the new container-storage-setup rpm need a c-s-s.service unitfile? Or is the d-s-s.service file only relevant for docker?

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Feb 27, 2017

No the idea is the docker* files will be shipped as part of the docker.spec file, they are really just examples in container-storage-setup. OCID will have similar files that it ships. container-storage-setup is not a service it is just a script that other services can use so there should NOT be a c-s-s.service.

@lsm5
Copy link
Author

lsm5 commented Feb 27, 2017

can we move the docker* files to @projectatomic/docker/contrib in that case? Just that having to fetch the same source tarball in both docker and container-storage-setup sounds like trouble.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Feb 27, 2017

@rhvgoyal WDYT?

@lsm5 We wanted to move slowly so that people using docker-storage-setup from source (If there are any) could continue to use container-storage-setup. The goal is a make install of this would work with a previous version of docker.service.

@lsm5
Copy link
Author

lsm5 commented Feb 27, 2017

hmm, in that case we could keep copies of those files in both docker and in here, and then get rid of them from in here when we're reasonably certain it's safe.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Feb 27, 2017

Sure in the long run they should just be in the docker package repo.

@rhvgoyal
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, let us move little slow for now. I want to make sure "make install" works reasonably well for docker users.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants