A mini-howto for the dns resolution can be found here ->
https://github.com/containers/dnsname/blob/master/README_PODMAN.md
that should be a decent POC. Depending on the distribution you are
using, you might need to use upstream code for cni and podman.
On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 08:43 +0200, Farkas
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:32 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
> On 10/1/19 2:35 PM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > ok i don't know which host os to choose and not really helpful any
> > docs about it what's more can't know anything about the future plan.
> >
> RHEL8 version of podman should be updated next mont
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:24 AM Scott McCarty wrote:
> Farkas,
> Sorry for top posting. Your email is very long, but the short answer
> to your question is Red Hat has two main strategies from a product
> perspective:
>
> 1. Single Node -> RHEL -> Podman. The product installs on bare metal an
Farkas,
Sorry for top posting. Your email is very long, but the short answer
to your question is Red Hat has two main strategies from a product
perspective:
1. Single Node -> RHEL -> Podman. The product installs on bare metal and
virtual machines.
2. Multi Node -> OpenShift -> CoreOS -> CRI-O
On 10/1/19 2:35 PM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It'd be very nice to get something useful information about the
> current state and future plan of RH about containerization.
> TL;DR is there anybody who knows anything about it?
>
> IMHO the current communication about containerization is a very
Hi,
It'd be very nice to get something useful information about the current
state and future plan of RH about containerization.
TL;DR is there anybody who knows anything about it?
IMHO the current communication about containerization is a very bad state.
That's the reason why i choose to reply
On 9/28/19 9:31 AM, Sanja Bonic wrote:
> Should we use this email as a generic call for people to look through
> the repos on Project Atomic and see whether they want to preserve any
> of the remaining ones? If yes, by which date?
>
We need to preserve the projectatomic/atomic code. Since this is i
Should we use this email as a generic call for people to look through the
repos on Project Atomic and see whether they want to preserve any of the
remaining ones? If yes, by which date?
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, 07:02 Daniel Walsh, wrote:
> On 9/27/19 7:20 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> > bubblewrap move
On 9/27/19 7:20 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> bubblewrap moved: https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap
> rpm-ostree moved: https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree
>
> Of the things remaining...probably the biggest is our docker branch:
> https://github.com/projectatomic/docker
> I feel like it'd be cl
bubblewrap moved: https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap
rpm-ostree moved: https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree
Of the things remaining...probably the biggest is our docker branch:
https://github.com/projectatomic/docker
I feel like it'd be cleanest if we created a new org for this stuff...queu
10 matches
Mail list logo
