| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:26:19AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:00:55AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 12/01/2015 08:50 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > The "container" keyword, being generic, would have its meaning expanded |
| 5 |
> > > to cover new container systems as they come along. This means if a |
| 6 |
> > > service script has the keyword "-container" it will not work under any |
| 7 |
> > > current or future container systems. On the other hand, adding |
| 8 |
> > > "container" means it will work under all of them. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If it's similar to how license groups work, then there is room for doing |
| 11 |
> > things like "-@container docker" which means no containers except |
| 12 |
> > docker, or "@container -docker" which means all containers except |
| 13 |
> > docker. Keyword groups can be implemented using a simple expansion |
| 14 |
> > mechanism, just like license groups. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Keyword groups are an interesting idea; I'll think about this approach. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
One question that comes to mind is,, who defines which keywords go in |
| 19 |
each group? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The containers or virtualization systems themselves can be autodetected |
| 22 |
so they are the same everywhere, but keyword groups are not able to be |
| 23 |
detected. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives