Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfp
Which would then contain all the standard tags for latest, rawhide, f22, etc.
Or alternatively, have each architecture maintain their own namespace within the Hub which would look a little more like:
FROM fedora-arm
I'm personally a fan of the first option because it keeps things under the Fedora umbrella and also allows for flexibility of aarch64, POWER, etc as Docker supports more architectures. However the one thing I see there that could be problematic is the possibility for users to be confused if they don't search on the Docker Hub webUI and see the associated documentation highlighting that the base image is for a different architecture but instead just search from the docker command line and end up with an image that won't run.
Looking forward to feedback on the topic.
Thanks, -AdamM
[0] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2015-June/009526.html
On Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:02:30 AM Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfpWhich would then contain all the standard tags for latest, rawhide, f22, etc.
Or alternatively, have each architecture maintain their own namespace within the Hub which would look a little more like:
FROM fedora-armI'm personally a fan of the first option because it keeps things under the Fedora umbrella and also allows for flexibility of aarch64, POWER, etc as Docker supports more architectures. However the one thing I see there that could be problematic is the possibility for users to be confused if they don't search on the Docker Hub webUI and see the associated documentation highlighting that the base image is for a different architecture but instead just search from the docker command line and end up with an image that won't run.
I think I prefer the first option also.
fedora/armhfp fedora/ppc64 fedora/ppc64le fedora/s390x fedora/i386
Regards
Dennis
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfp
Upstream Docker does have an Architecture metadata field.
I'd imagine there is some possibility to teach the client how to pull the right base image based on an architecture.
There's probably some discussion of this somewhere upstream? I'm CC'ing Vincent who might know.
Or at least, detect when you pull an incompatible image?
It'd be good to coordinate this with other distributions like Debian too - what patterns are they using?
I think what might be nicest is if the architecture became an implicit 3rd field or something?
So if I did:
docker pull fedora:22 from an x86_64 host I got x86_64 (or amd64 in Debian terms),
But it should be *possible* to do: docker pull fedora:22:arm64 or whatever on x86_64, even if it won't actually run.
On 06/06/15 16:40 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfpUpstream Docker does have an Architecture metadata field.
I'd imagine there is some possibility to teach the client how to pull the right base image based on an architecture.
There's probably some discussion of this somewhere upstream? I'm CC'ing Vincent who might know.
this is a rough process. The client and registry work fine, on a given arch, but not sharing. Upstream has talked of making an arm.docker.io as a stop gap, but the problem needs to be fixed in the manifest and registry API. This discussion always tends to end with "we'll do more for this in the next release cycle". :-\
Or at least, detect when you pull an incompatible image?
It'd be good to coordinate this with other distributions like Debian too - what patterns are they using?
I think what might be nicest is if the architecture became an implicit 3rd field or something?
So if I did:
docker pull fedora:22 from an x86_64 host I got x86_64 (or amd64 in Debian terms),
But it should be *possible* to do: docker pull fedora:22:arm64 or whatever on x86_64, even if it won't actually run.
feel free to open the topic on https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/docker-dev
IBMers and others would gladly pile in on the topic.
vb
On 06/02/2015 08:32 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfpWhich would then contain all the standard tags for latest, rawhide, f22, etc.
Or alternatively, have each architecture maintain their own namespace within the Hub which would look a little more like:
FROM fedora-armI'm personally a fan of the first option because it keeps things under the Fedora umbrella and also allows for flexibility of aarch64, POWER, etc as Docker supports more architectures. However the one thing I see there that could be problematic is the possibility for users to be confused if they don't search on the Docker Hub webUI and see the associated documentation highlighting that the base image is for a different architecture but instead just search from the docker command line and end up with an image that won't run.
Looking forward to feedback on the topic.
Is there any agreement on the naming scheme ?
Thanks, -AdamM
[0] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2015-June/009526.html
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <bpradip@in.ibm.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2015 08:32 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all, There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for all of this.
The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the "FROM" line for a Dockerfile
FROM fedora/armhfpWhich would then contain all the standard tags for latest, rawhide, f22,
etc.
Or alternatively, have each architecture maintain their own namespace within the Hub which would look a little more like:
FROM fedora-armI'm personally a fan of the first option because it keeps things under the Fedora umbrella and also allows for flexibility of aarch64, POWER, etc as Docker supports more architectures. However the one thing I see there that could be problematic is the possibility for users to be confused if they don't search on the Docker Hub webUI and see the associated documentation highlighting that the base image is for a different architecture but instead just search from the docker command line and end up with an image that won't run.
Looking forward to feedback on the topic.
Is there any agreement on the naming scheme ?
The first form seems to have the most support.
Thanks, -AdamM
[0] -
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2015-June/009526.html
-- Regards, Pradipta
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 07/07/2015 06:09 AM, Jon wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <bpradip@in.ibm.com mailto:bpradip@in.ibm.com> wrote:
On 06/02/2015 08:32 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > Hello all, > There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0] > about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That > discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for > all of this. > > The current questions are either using Fedora's namespace and just > making a new image (using Fedora ARM as an example), this would be the > "FROM" line for a Dockerfile > > FROM fedora/armhfp > > Which would then contain all the standard tags for latest, rawhide, f22, etc. > > Or alternatively, have each architecture maintain their own namespace > within the Hub which would look a little more like: > > FROM fedora-arm > > I'm personally a fan of the first option because it keeps things under > the Fedora umbrella and also allows for flexibility of aarch64, POWER, > etc as Docker supports more architectures. However the one thing I see > there that could be problematic is the possibility for users to be > confused if they don't search on the Docker Hub webUI and see the > associated documentation highlighting that the base image is for a > different architecture but instead just search from the docker command > line and end up with an image that won't run. > > Looking forward to feedback on the topic. Is there any agreement on the naming scheme ?The first form seems to have the most support.
Makes sense.. Should we also discuss this in the docker-dev mailing list as well since this affects every official image in the docker hub ?
> > Thanks, > -AdamM > > [0] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2015-June/009526.html > -- Regards, Pradipta -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct--
-Jon Disnard
-
Adam Miller -
Colin Walters -
Dennis Gilmore -
Jon -
Pradipta Kumar Banerjee -
Vincent Batts