On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Dale Bewley <d...@bewley.net> wrote:
> > > ----- On Aug 28, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Ben Parees <bpar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-dockerfiles/tree/master/rhel7.s2i-base is > the future, so you should go off that, which as you noted generates > registry.access.redhat.com/rhscl/s2i-base-rhel7 > > Some existing s2i rhel images are still based on > https://github.com/openshift/s2i-base however. > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > I see https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-dockerfiles/blob/master/ > rhel7.s2i-base/Dockerfile has `FROM rhel:7.2-released` > > I do not see a `7.2-released` tag on the rhel image, but I assume it is > the same image as `rhel:7.2` but on an internal registry perhaps? > yes it should be equivalent, you'll notice some of the other rhel7 images use the rhel7.2 image repo directly as well: https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-dockerfiles/blob/master/centos7.mysql55/Dockerfile.rhel7 you should be ok using either rhel:7.2 or rhel7.2, they appear to be identical: registry.access.redhat.com/rhel7.2 latest 98a88a8b722a 12 days ago 201.4 MB registry.access.redhat.com/rhel 7.2 98a88a8b722a 12 days ago 201.4 MB > $ curl -s https://registry.access.redhat.com/v1/repositories/rhel/tags | > jq . > { > "6.7": "0701b067a2960e22357a373f8d53ac2ad12547e2c19d49750b9af4401167 > b70d", > "6.7-35": "fb7b495fd705c9e9bbbd17b893f9937957c6d6d94ea311d5494658dff86b > 4ac2", > "6.7-51": "0701b067a2960e22357a373f8d53ac2ad12547e2c19d49750b9af4401167 > b70d", > "6.8": "59d5a49b0f75c6f78a3673368cb76976ec89a5f020026f43fc99572d48ea > 936b", > "6.8-101": "59d5a49b0f75c6f78a3673368cb76976ec89a5f020026f43fc99572d48ea > 936b", > "7.0-21": "e1f5733f050b2488a17b7630cb038bfbea8b7bdfa9bdfb99e63a33117e28 > d02f", > "7.0-23": "bef54b8f8a2fdd221734f1da404d4c0a7d07ee9169b1443a338ab54236c8 > c91a", > "7.0-27": "8e6704f39a3d4a0c82ec7262ad683a9d1d9a281e3c1ebbb64c045b9af39b > 3940", > "7.1-11": "d0a516b529ab1adda28429cae5985cab9db93bfd8d301b3a94d22299af72 > 914b", > "7.1-12": "275be1d3d0709a06ff1ae38d0d5402bc8f0eeac44812e5ec1df4a9e99214 > eb9a", > "7.1-16": "82ad5fa11820c2889c60f7f748d67aab04400700c581843db0d1e6873532 > 7443", > "7.1-24": "c4f590bbcbe329a77c00fea33a3a960063072041489012061ec3a134baba > 50d6", > "7.1-4": "10acc31def5d6f249b548e01e8ffbaccfd61af0240c17315a7ad393d022c > 5ca2", > "7.1-6": "65de4a13fc7cf28b4376e65efa31c5c3805e18da4eb01ad0c8b8801f4a10 > bc16", > "7.1-9": "e3c92c6cff3543d19d0c9a24c72cd3840f8ba3ee00357f997b786e8939ef > ef2f", > "7.2": "aec95d6d92873ac6bc966d4fb6e97cd5a9e4da5e53e91478078557a7dc94 > eaaf", > "7.2-104": "aec95d6d92873ac6bc966d4fb6e97cd5a9e4da5e53e91478078557a7dc94 > eaaf", > "7.2-35": "6883d5422f4ec2810e1312c0e3e5a902142e2a8185cd3a1124b459a7c38d > c55b", > "7.2-38": "6c3a84d798dc449313787502060b6d5b4694d7527d64a7c99ba199e3b2df > 834e", > "7.2-43": "07e361a1cd7cae70df4c585c2dbeceb25e069a01911c15a5d70d499eacd0 > 53ce", > "7.2-44": "18c92348de3686dfc369b5acd799b0538b54072279a130f56688510f6e6f > 9828", > "7.2-46": "bf63a676257aeb7a75a6bbbda138398bbaf223ab34fe9d169e458f9b3990 > 04ef", > "7.2-56": "95612a3264fcea256ed7c179d6e4a5dece55e217cff198bbaeb4a7e554f9 > 74ca", > "7.2-61": "c453594215e4370541ba0a2a238c9429026de1d1deedf5e5b7442778e428 > c60f", > "7.2-75": "885f7095eac8364d76d110f7a886974f12a4aeef7a03721bda49c8947f49 > 92ce", > "7.2-84": "6f7a31562d1ec723b2b025c8cf040fd6c0e74cb14fd0abdbd1a9b0dee5dd > 19f6", > "latest": "aec95d6d92873ac6bc966d4fb6e97cd5a9e4da5e53e91478078557a7dc94 > eaaf" > } > > Is it possible to see the Dockerfile for rhel:7.2-released? > > > > Note that there's no requirement your s2i image use that base image. If > you find it convenient, great, but its primary purpose is to serve as a > common base for the existing suite of SCL-based s2i images, its use as a > general base for s2i images is a secondary goal (meaning if it does not > serve your purposes, requests for enhancement will be considered in the > context of the primary goal). > > Understood. My goal is to customize as little as possible and make it as > likely as possible that developers take advantage of your releases by way > of imagechange triggers following my builder images which have imagechange > triggers following your builder images. To accomplish this, I'm using > buildconfigs inside OpenShift for my builder images instead of the s2i > command line tool. > sounds like the right approach. > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Dale Bewley <d...@bewley.net> wrote: > >> >> Where does the OpenShift Enterprise s2i-base image come from? >> >> A. https://github.com/openshift/s2i-base or >> B. https://github.com/sclorg/rhscl-dockerfiles/tree/master/rhel7.s2i-base >> >> Repo A builds FROM rhel7.2 and seems to create >> registry.access.redhat.com/openshift3/sti-base >> Repo B builds FROM rhel:7.2-released and seems to create >> registry.access.redhat.com/rhscl/s2i-base-rhel7 >> >> I see s2i-python repo has been renamed to https://github.com/sclorg/s2i- >> python-container >> but it doesn't use either. It builds FROM openshift/base-rhel7. >> >> Is there a direct lineage that can be followed? Sclorg seems to own all >> the s2i now, but at what point do images enter the openshift part of the >> registry? >> >> What should I model a custom s2i on? >> >> Thanks >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@lists.openshift.redhat.com >> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users >> > > > > -- > Ben Parees | OpenShift > > > -- Ben Parees | OpenShift
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
