On 03/08/2017 06:16 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote: > Hi all, > > I've worked on making the containers rootfs creation easy. > Here is a wrap-up of my work: > > http://bosdonnat.fr/system-container-images.html > > Any opinion on that? Anything to do to move it forward? Awesome. I always felt like preparing rootfs for my containers was overwhelming. Now, with your tool I can use docker images at least. BTW: should we have the repo hosted on libvirt.org? Or at least link yours from our docs?

On 03/09/2017 09:28 AM, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 08:54 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 03/08/2017 06:16 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've worked on making the containers rootfs creation easy. >>> Here is a wrap-up of my work: >>> >>> http://bosdonnat.fr/system-container-images.html >>> >>> Any opinion on that? Anything to do to move it forward? >> >> Awesome. I always felt like preparing rootfs for my containers was >> overwhelming. Now, with your tool I can use docker images at least. BTW: >> should we have the repo hosted on libvirt.org? Or at least link yours >> from our docs? > > So far there is no openSUSE or SUSE registry holding the images, thus > having one on libvirt.org would be great. I don't know how other distros > are generating their docker images, that part of the process should be > investigated. Having a libvirt.org public repo would imply: > > * Having reviews of the published images > * Make sure those are updated to include major fixes like the security ones > > I'm OK to do that for the openSUSE part and to help reviewing the images, > but I'm not sure it's going to fly if I'm doing it alone. Ah, I didn't mean to host an image store on our server. I meant your tool. And for the review - if you'd lack reviews we can agree that you just push the patches without any review. That's the agreement we have for projects that don't have that much attention (e.g. libvirt-php). > > As for the virt-bootstrap tool, it may deserve a better repository (I've set > a not-so-random license on it and I can change it at will). May be the name > could also be improved. As for the features: I'm terrible with names, so I rather not suggest one.