On Aug 6, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Václav Pavlín <vpavlin@redhat.com> wrote:



On St 6. srpen 2014, 16:43:23 CEST, Radek Vokál wrote:


----- Original Message -----


On St 6. srpen 2014, 16:13:34 CEST, Radek Vokál wrote:
Vasku, I like the idea  and the workflow. If I understand the workflow
right - the layered image will build on top of base image picked in COPR
(eg. Fedora20 or CentOS7)? Also would it make sense to run our own docker
registry and have in connected to docker.io?

My idea was to "guess" base image automatically from the
os-version(-arch) selected by user in COPR - so if the copr build is
for fedora-20-x86_64, we can say yes, it's 64bit, and use fedora:20 as
base image.

If we really want to build images, it would make sense to serve them in
private registry. On the other hand, I've changed my mind since I sent
this proposal - I am not sure if Fedora infrastructure can/will handle
building and storing possibly hundreds or thousands of images. I'd like
to start with a feature that will prepare and let you download a
Dockerfile which you can then modify locally and build your image.

Well, not everyone will request to build an image and correct me if I'm wrong, but for updates docker only stores diffs.

I think we should take worst case scenario in account - i.e. we end up building image for almost all packages. Second thing is we should probably consider building of images from sets of packages as it would make a lot of sense in some cases.

IMHO It stores diffs from base image (or actually from image in FROM option). One problem we would have to solve is removing unused images from registry as that's missing in current registry implementation - images (or rather diffs) just stay there forever.

Vaclav


I agree, I think as a first step creating the dockerfiles is a good idea.  Managing the potential number of images that we could end up with could become problematic.  I think it would be a good idea to try and quantify the rough amount of capacity we would have within the Fedora Infrastructure to build images - then we would know how much wiggle room we have.

Cheers
Stu


R


I need to talk about this with Mirek and people from Fedora
Infrastructure probably.

Vaclav


Radek

----- Original Message -----
Could you please have a look at attached diagram briefly describing
potential architecture of the image building service? Would this be a
viable solution?


https://vpavlin.fedorapeople.org/copr-docker.svg

Vaclav

On 24.7.2014 10:42, Václav Pavlín wrote:


On St 23. červenec 2014, 13:33:06 CEST, Richard Marko wrote:
On 07/23/2014 10:44 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 07/23/2014 01:42 AM, Václav Pavlín wrote:
What do you think? Do you think this makes sense for copr?
If we could use COPR to make Beaker packages for Fedora and EPEL *and*
upload Dockerfiles to generate Docker images for the various
components,
that would be seriously cool. On the other hand, it might make more
sense as a separate service that reacts to fedmsg events indicating new
COPR builds are available.


+1 for separate service.


I am not against separate service. The separate service would probably
simply mean running Docker in some cloud instance and call it's API
through docker-python bindings and then collect the results.

Vaclav

--

Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic

--

Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic

_______________________________________________
copr-devel mailing list
copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copr-devel

_______________________________________________
copr-devel mailing list
copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copr-devel

--

Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic


--

Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic