Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Nice work on the docker package! Thanks for pushing it. And thanks to Bartłomiej for renaming. - Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 05/12/2013 09:15, Daniel Isenmann wrote: > Am 04.12.2013 00:21, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: >> On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >>> On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote: Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: > On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >> On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: >>> Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by >>> docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as >>> soon as it's ready. >>> >> Daniel, >> >> "new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I >> provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there >> something I can do to help you to go through this? >> >> Cheers, >> > Can another dev do this step? I have nearly no free time at the moment > to do anything. Would be great if someone can do this. > Rename was done by Bartłomiej. New docker package was pushed to community. Thanks to everyone that helped. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Am 04.12.2013 00:21, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote: Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready. Daniel, "new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there something I can do to help you to go through this? Cheers, Can another dev do this step? I have nearly no free time at the moment to do anything. Would be great if someone can do this. Thanks Daniel
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Ike, > > No, because the new docker package will have epoch=1, like discussed above. > > - Alexander / xyproto right, sorry i forgot thx -- Ike pgpOXaZhTFDhY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Ike, No, because the new docker package will have epoch=1, like discussed above. - Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:00:25AM +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Could a dev please rename docker in [extra] to docker-tray and add
> replaces=('docker<=1.5')?
>
> Daniel Isenmann has already okayed this.
>
> - Alexander / xyproto
Won't this lead to a serious problem ?
- i install docker (0.7.0) (the one i want is docker.io one)
- i update and get docker-tray because of this replace ?
--
Ike
pgplUV_TRPwXF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Could a dev please rename docker in [extra] to docker-tray and add
replaces=('docker<=1.5')?
Daniel Isenmann has already okayed this.
- Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote: >> Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: >>> On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by > docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as > soon as it's ready. > Daniel, "new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there something I can do to help you to go through this? Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote: > Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: >> On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >>> On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;) > > That was the reason for the discussion about the way we should rename it > and the epoch=1 solution which Alexander mentioned. ;-) > I made tests with a local repository with a docker-tray[1] package and a docker package with epoch set to 1. It replaces docker version<=1.5 and it conflicts with docker (because of /usr/bin/docker). No need to provides, there is no reverse dep on docker[2] and it will create issue in the future. It works well. Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready. Cheers, [1] https://horus.seblu.net/~seblu/docker-tray/PKGBUILD [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/docker/ -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer: On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;) I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository. I got answers/help from upstream. I want underline that they are really nice and it's a pleasure to work with them. So, I built a fresh new PKGBUILD[1] for 0.7.0. Some notes on differences with AUR version: - docker is built dynamically (and no more upstream blob) - use upstream version for bash and zsh completions - move of dockerinit from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/docker [2] - use improved systemd service file (e.g make-rpivate) [3] Now I need to test this new package more deeply. And we're waiting for Daniel words about renaming current docker package. In case this is not possible, upstream advice to use lxc-docker[4]. I had already answered: - Hi, the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3. Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades. Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra. But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker or am I wrong on this? Cheers, Daniel -- That was the reason for the discussion about the way we should rename it and the epoch=1 solution which Alexander mentioned. ;-) Cheers, Daniel
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote: >> A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of >> shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;) >> > I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository. I got answers/help from upstream. I want underline that they are really nice and it's a pleasure to work with them. So, I built a fresh new PKGBUILD[1] for 0.7.0. Some notes on differences with AUR version: - docker is built dynamically (and no more upstream blob) - use upstream version for bash and zsh completions - move of dockerinit from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/docker [2] - use improved systemd service file (e.g make-rpivate) [3] Now I need to test this new package more deeply. And we're waiting for Daniel words about renaming current docker package. In case this is not possible, upstream advice to use lxc-docker[4]. Cheers, [1] https://github.com/seblu/archpkg/blob/master/docker/PKGBUILD [2] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/pull/2924 [3] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/pull/2925 [4] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/blob/master/hack/PACKAGERS.md -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of
> shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
>
> Summary / suggsted plan:
> 1. Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5')
> 2. Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
>
> I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
>
To sum up the discution on IRC, there is no hurry to do that.
I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository.
Cheers,
--
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://www.seblu.net
GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
> Shouldn't that be 'docker<=1.5'? I thought users were not supported if they did not have an up to date system, but I guess it doesn't hurt. - Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Am 27.11.2013 14:57, schrieb Alexander Rødseth:
> A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of
> shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
>
> Summary / suggsted plan:
> 1. Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5')
Shouldn't that be 'docker<=1.5'?
> 2. Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
>
> I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of
shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
Summary / suggsted plan:
1. Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5')
2. Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
- Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Something like:
>
> replaces=('docker=1.5')
>
> in the docker-tray PKGBUILD?
>
> Isn't that equally problematic, since that could cause problems if
> docker (currently at version 0.7) reached version 1.5?
I guess this could be simply solved by introducing the new docker with
epoch=1...?
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Something like:
replaces=('docker=1.5')
in the docker-tray PKGBUILD?
Isn't that equally problematic, since that could cause problems if
docker (currently at version 0.7) reached version 1.5?
- Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 27/11/13 23:29, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Good question. > > Could pre_upgrade bail out if the old version of docker is present on > the system, giving a message that the user probably wants to install > docker-tray instead? > No. A versioned replace might be possible...
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Good question. Could pre_upgrade bail out if the old version of docker is present on the system, giving a message that the user probably wants to install docker-tray instead? - Alexander / xyproto
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Am 27.11.2013 12:58, schrieb Tom Gundersen: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae: Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page. Allan Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all. In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman. This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition. After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer. On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done. Cheers, [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.html This makes sense to me. It may be worth noting that the 'old' docker is installed by roughly 1% of our users, but according to their website is meant for use with GNOME2 and KDE3, which we don't even ship any more. I'd say dropping or renaming it makes the most sense and let this new package take the name 'docker', as that's what people will be looking for. Cheers, Tom Hi, the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3. Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades. Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra. But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker or am I wrong on this? Cheers, Daniel
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Hi, The lxc-docker package as work in progress and was never pushed anywhere (only checked in to SVN). The post_install function was copied directly from the lxc-docker-nightly package on AUR (and proper credits were given), but testing, fixing and polish had not yet been applied to the PKGBUILD and the accompanying .install file. Also, docker probably needs to be built from a specific git revision (or tag/branch, if upstream makes that available). I fully agree that instructions that verbose does not belong in official packages. -- Sincerely, Alexander Rødseth xyproto / TU
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae: >>> Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you >>> REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page. >>> >>> Allan >> >> Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. >> In the best case, there is no message at all. >> >> In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and >> networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to >> be printed during pacman. >> >> > This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been > started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition. > > After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can > use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or > lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer. > > On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build > the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by > dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done. > > Cheers, > > [1] > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.html This makes sense to me. It may be worth noting that the 'old' docker is installed by roughly 1% of our users, but according to their website is meant for use with GNOME2 and KDE3, which we don't even ship any more. I'd say dropping or renaming it makes the most sense and let this new package take the name 'docker', as that's what people will be looking for. Cheers, Tom
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae: >> Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you >> REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page. >> >> Allan > > Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. > In the best case, there is no message at all. > > In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and > networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to > be printed during pacman. > > This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition. After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer. On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done. Cheers, [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.html -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae: > Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you > REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page. > > Allan Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all. In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you
REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
Original Message
Subject: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:14:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Alexander Rødseth
Reply-To: Arch Linux packaging commits
To: arch-comm...@archlinux.org
--- lxc-docker/trunk/docker.install (rev 0)
+++ lxc-docker/trunk/docker.install 2013-11-27 10:14:00 UTC (rev 101542)
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Contributor: Nicolas Dudebout
+
+post_install() {
+ grep -q '^docker:' /etc/group || groupadd --system docker
+ systemctl daemon-reload
+ echo 'To make Docker fully functional, consider performing the
following actions:'
+ echo ' + Start the docker daemon:'
+ echo ' $ sudo systemctl start docker'
+ echo ' + (OPTIONAL) Start the docker daemon at boot:'
+ echo ' $ sudo systemctl enable docker'
+ echo ' + Add your user to the docker group to run the docker client
without sudo:'
+ echo ' $ sudo usermod -a -G docker '
+ echo 'Login again for the change to take effect or run the
following command'
+ echo 'for a change affecting only the current shell:'
+ echo ' $ newgrp docker'
+ echo ' + Enable IPv4 forwarding to allow internet connections inside
the containers.'
+ echo 'See /etc/sysctl.d/docker.conf for WARNING and instructions.'
+}
+
