On 05/01/17 14:42 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 17:02 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Which definitely changes how software is built.
Containers also change the way software must be written in some cases,
since they expect there to be one main process and don't expect that
main process to interact with other "main" processes on the system.
There are some program architectures that aren't well suited to be run
in containers since containers expect programs to work in specific
ways. I don't think they are general enough to cover all use cases.
I also expect that users will not appreciate being forced to use
containers if they want to keep being able to do things they can do
today. Offering it to them as an option rather than the only solution
is probably a friendlier approach.
That would certainly be a problem if the proposal was to run each
32-bit application in its own container environment, but I think the
suggestion is to have a single 32-bit container used by all 32-bit
software. With that approach all the 32-bit software would be able to
interact with the rest of the 32-bit system, there wouldn't be
segregation between them.
But we would need to consider how a 32-bit application starts other
programs via things like xdg-open. Would you have to have a 32-bit
browser installed so that you could click on links in 32-bit
applications? Would xdg-utils have to be installed on the system
twice, once in the 64-bit host and once in the 32-bit container? And
install things like Firefox and image viewers twice?