On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:55 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/06/2013 03:00 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:56 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 11/06/2013 05:18 AM, David Strauss wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>>>> Container support is one of the topics that the Environments/Stacks
>>>> people are being tasked with investigating. The other thing is the
>>>> option for *limited* bundling of dependencies with something like
>>>> Software Collections.
>>> I'm frustrated with how poorly these working group tasks were defined
>>> before and during working group formation. Why are we finding out only
>>> now what each group is supposed to do? I was clear in my
>>> self-nomination that containerization is a key priority for me.
>> Containerization falls under us as well to a certain extent as in we
>> need to ensure that server applications can be installed and operated in
>> a self container or an OS container and this will requires to rework our
>> entire units as well as drop /etc/sysconfig environmental stuff ( finally )
> I do not understand your last point, where do you put the 'stuff' that
> is now in /etc/sysconfig ?
It should not exist in the first place since daemon/services startup
including their environment should be define in a configuration file
that the daemon reads when started
That said environment files stored under /etc/sysconfig/ directory are
Fedora/RHEL specific making units we write for them non cross
distributable which upstream usually frowns upon and would better belong
under their own /etc/<daemon.d>/configuration directory .
This is a laudable goal in theory, but in practice a lot of software
needs external environment variables, so you'd have to first convince
upstream to change how their daemons are started and not all projects
are cooperative on that side. I do not hold high hopes we will be able
to attain this in the short term.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York