On 07/10/2015 07:27 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 04:30 AM, Tobias Florek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> tldr: add early-docker daemon (a la coreos) to support running
> I think a two-level approach would indeed allow implementing a
> number of nontrivial deployment types. Probably not
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 04:30 AM, Tobias Florek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tldr: add early-docker daemon (a la coreos) to support running
I think a two-level approach would indeed allow implementing a
number of nontrivial deployment types. Probably not *all* of them
though (at least at the current time).
> I.e. do we want to run some fundamental software (also flanneld, as done
> by core os) in a container, so it can be installed on demand?
I forgot to mention: That makes atomic host also more flexible as it
allows competing implementations for some functionality. Think
iptables-services vs firewa
Hi.
Thank you for your reply.
> I think we should investigate using runc rather then docker form
> something like this. The idea would be to create a docker container
> image, but run it outside of the docker framework.
>
> I am not sure if this is possible but I think this is something we
> s
On 07/08/2015 04:30 AM, Tobias Florek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tldr: add early-docker daemon (a la coreos) to support running
>
> I need to connect bare-metal atomic hosts via ipsec. That works (with
> minor quirks) using the privileged ibotty/ipsec-libreswan container.
> Unfortunately, because it is usi
Hi,
tldr: add early-docker daemon (a la coreos) to support running
I need to connect bare-metal atomic hosts via ipsec. That works (with
minor quirks) using the privileged ibotty/ipsec-libreswan container.
Unfortunately, because it is using docker, it starts pretty late in the
boot process. Fortu
