| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:24:05AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Rather than replacing all of the system-specific keywords, can we make |
| 4 |
> > 'container' into an alias that expands to the full list of known container |
| 5 |
> > types? That way, if there is an init script that is specific to some container |
| 6 |
> > type, it would still be usable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This is the approach I would personally be more comfortable with. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Thinking about this more, there definitely is a concern imo. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The "container" keyword, being generic, would have its meaning expanded |
| 13 |
to cover new container systems as they come along. This means if a |
| 14 |
service script has the keyword "-container" it will not work under any |
| 15 |
current or future container systems. On the other hand, adding |
| 16 |
"container" means it will work under all of them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The more I think about this, I think fine-grained control rather than |
| 19 |
just using a single keyword for all containers is the better option. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thoughts? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
William |
Archives