On 3/29/19 7:08 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'm sure i will embarrass myself for asking this, but i'm confused
> about the relationship on my F30 (branched) system between those three
> packages. i can see that they are all container runtime packages, but
> i get confused when i run commands to try to understand how they
> relate to each other, as they clearly(?) represent alternatives for
> container runtimes.
>
> currently, on my system, rpm reports that only containerd.io is
> installed:
>
> $ rpm -q runc
> package runc is not installed
> $ rpm -q containerd
> package containerd is not installed
> $ rpm -q containerd.io
> containerd.io-1.2.4-3.1.fc29.x86_64
>
> however, the man page that works is "man containerd", not "man
> containerd.io".
>
> also, even though rpm suggests that, as packages, containerd.io is
> installed and containerd is not, dnf repoquery seems to report the
> opposite:
>
> $ dnf repoquery -l containerd.io
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:29:11 ago on Fri 29 Mar 2019
> 06:32:46 AM EDT.
> $
>
> $ dnf repoquery -l containerd
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:30:22 ago on Fri 29 Mar 2019
> 06:32:46 AM EDT.
> /etc/containerd
> /etc/containerd/config.toml
> /usr/bin/containerd
> /usr/bin/containerd-shim
> /usr/bin/ctr
> .... etc etc ...
>
> finally, while "dnf info runc" reports that there is a runc package,
> trying to install unsurprisingly produces:
>
> $ sudo dnf install runc
> ... snip ...
> Package containerd.io-1.2.4-3.1.fc29.x86_64 is already installed.
> ... etc ...
>
> so i'm sure there is a relationship involving provides and conflicts
> or something of the sort, i'm just confused as to what's happening
> here. (if there is a better forum for a question like this, by all
> means, let me know.)
>
> rday
>
It looks like containerd.io is providing its own version of runc
which conflicts with runc.
runc is a container runtime (An OCI Container Runtime) to be
specific
containerd is a container engine, just like Podman, Docker, Moby,
Buildah, CRI-O
Containerd I believe is packaged incorrectly and should either use
the systems runc or imbed its own into a private directory, and
should not conflict with runc.
I opened a bug on this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694046
Not sure how this package made it through package review.
As for the naming, I have no idea.
You shold pobably add your comments on naming to this bugzilla.
will do, and thank you for not making fun of me for being this
confused. :-)
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA