You are not logged in.

#26 2018-11-04 04:18:26

eschwartz
Trusted User/Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 2,853

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

progandy wrote:

Thanks for the tip with partial static linking. I never realized that partial static linking is possible, too. I never liked "app containers", and now the last reason I grudgingly accepted them is gone as well.

If you think about it, partial static linking is just linking to one libfoo.a and to another libbar.so -- and the libfoo.a is just a collection of foo_1.o foo_2.o foo_3.o object files, only instead of including and building lots of .c files in your project, you depend on someone else's prebuilt version. Every time you build anything at all, you are statically linking e.g. main.c


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#27 2018-12-12 23:55:10

headkase
Member
Registered: 2011-12-06
Posts: 1,840

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

Bumping because I came across a relevant video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8oeN9AF4G8&t=80

In context, Linus Torvalds sees containers like Flatpak as a way to have a single package work on any distribution.

Offline

#28 2018-12-13 01:53:47

eschwartz
Trusted User/Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 2,853

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

I'm not sure what's new about this. This is something we already knew, plus lots of people think that.

How well does this gauge whether it is successfully having packages work on any distribution?

Why is it amazing that Linus sees containers like flatpak as a way to do the thing literally front and center on the landing page for the main website of said technology? It's literally the main selling point. It's also something that's been repeatedly mentioned in this very thread, including by you.


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#29 2018-12-13 09:41:37

Steef435
Member
Registered: 2013-08-29
Posts: 542
Website

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

Docker containers aren't completely closed (yet) right? So it's not entirely accurate to call them VMs. And, like Trilby already somewhat mentioned, a case I've come across for a webserver was something like:
- download container A
- download the MySQL container
- link container A to the MySQL container
And then it's kind of back to where we started. (because, what if the MySQL container is hypothetically so out of date that the protocol changed?)

I will say, however, that it's usually easy to get rid of containers. "Download this container and blabla" is pretty equivalent to "execute curl -s <some_shady_file> | sh" but it's usually easier to "uninstall" the whole thing if it's a container than if it were installed by some shady shell file that created files all over the place without a proper uninstall script. But yeah, that's what package managers are for.

PS: I'm more a fan of dishes myself

Last edited by Steef435 (2018-12-13 09:43:06)

Offline

#30 2018-12-13 13:27:25

headkase
Member
Registered: 2011-12-06
Posts: 1,840

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

eschwartz wrote:

I'm not sure what's new about this. This is something we already knew, plus lots of people think that.

How well does this gauge whether it is successfully having packages work on any distribution?

Why is it amazing that Linus sees containers like flatpak as a way to do the thing literally front and center on the landing page for the main website of said technology? It's literally the main selling point. It's also something that's been repeatedly mentioned in this very thread, including by you.

I know.  I just wanted to add the video because it's Linus saying it.. wink

Offline

#31 2018-12-13 13:58:04

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 21,112
Website

Re: Do containers make sense in Arch?

headkase wrote:

I just wanted to add the video because it's Linus saying it.. wink

Very quietly and almost entirely masked by the obnoxiously loud attempted-melodramatic "background" music.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB