Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:14:00 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Rødseth arodseth@nymeria.archlinux.org Reply-To: Arch Linux packaging commits arch-commits@archlinux.org To: arch-commits@archlinux.org
<snip>
--- lxc-docker/trunk/docker.install (rev 0) +++ lxc-docker/trunk/docker.install 2013-11-27 10:14:00 UTC (rev 101542) @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +# Contributor: Nicolas Dudebout nicolas.dudebout@gatech.edu + +post_install() { + grep -q '^docker:' /etc/group || groupadd --system docker + systemctl daemon-reload + echo 'To make Docker fully functional, consider performing the following actions:' + echo ' + Start the docker daemon:' + echo ' $ sudo systemctl start docker' + echo ' + (OPTIONAL) Start the docker daemon at boot:' + echo ' $ sudo systemctl enable docker' + echo ' + Add your user to the docker group to run the docker client without sudo:' + echo ' $ sudo usermod -a -G docker <username>' + echo ' Login again for the change to take effect or run the following command' + echo ' for a change affecting only the current shell:' + echo ' $ newgrp docker' + echo ' + Enable IPv4 forwarding to allow internet connections inside the containers.' + echo ' See /etc/sysctl.d/docker.conf for WARNING and instructions.' +} +
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae:
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all.
In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman.
On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae:
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all.
In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman.
This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition.
After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer.
On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done.
Cheers,
[1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.htm...
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae:
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all.
In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman.
This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition.
After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer.
On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done.
Cheers,
[1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.htm...
This makes sense to me. It may be worth noting that the 'old' docker is installed by roughly 1% of our users, but according to their website is meant for use with GNOME2 and KDE3, which we don't even ship any more. I'd say dropping or renaming it makes the most sense and let this new package take the name 'docker', as that's what people will be looking for.
Cheers,
Tom
Hi,
The lxc-docker package as work in progress and was never pushed anywhere (only checked in to SVN). The post_install function was copied directly from the lxc-docker-nightly package on AUR (and proper credits were given), but testing, fixing and polish had not yet been applied to the PKGBUILD and the accompanying .install file. Also, docker probably needs to be built from a specific git revision (or tag/branch, if upstream makes that available).
I fully agree that instructions that verbose does not belong in official packages.
Am 27.11.2013 12:58, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sébastien Luttringer seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae:
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Allan
Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all.
In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman.
This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general[1] and I stated that I'll managing addition.
After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer.
On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done.
Cheers,
[1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-November/026223.htm...
This makes sense to me. It may be worth noting that the 'old' docker is installed by roughly 1% of our users, but according to their website is meant for use with GNOME2 and KDE3, which we don't even ship any more. I'd say dropping or renaming it makes the most sense and let this new package take the name 'docker', as that's what people will be looking for.
Cheers,
Tom
Hi,
the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3. Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades. Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra.
But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker or am I wrong on this?
Cheers, Daniel
Good question.
Could pre_upgrade bail out if the old version of docker is present on the system, giving a message that the user probably wants to install docker-tray instead?
- Alexander / xyproto
On 27/11/13 23:29, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Good question.
Could pre_upgrade bail out if the old version of docker is present on the system, giving a message that the user probably wants to install docker-tray instead?
No.
A versioned replace might be possible...
Something like:
replaces=('docker=1.5')
in the docker-tray PKGBUILD?
Isn't that equally problematic, since that could cause problems if docker (currently at version 0.7) reached version 1.5?
- Alexander / xyproto
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Rødseth rodseth@gmail.com wrote:
Something like:
replaces=('docker=1.5')
in the docker-tray PKGBUILD?
Isn't that equally problematic, since that could cause problems if docker (currently at version 0.7) reached version 1.5?
I guess this could be simply solved by introducing the new docker with epoch=1...?
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
Summary / suggsted plan: 1. Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5') 2. Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
- Alexander / xyproto
Am 27.11.2013 14:57, schrieb Alexander Rødseth:
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
Summary / suggsted plan:
- Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5')
Shouldn't that be 'docker<=1.5'?
- Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
Shouldn't that be 'docker<=1.5'?
I thought users were not supported if they did not have an up to date system, but I guess it doesn't hurt.
- Alexander / xyproto
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
Summary / suggsted plan:
- Rename docker (the old one) to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker=1.5')
- Upload and add epoch=1 to docker (the new one)
I can do step 2 if someone can handle step 1.
To sum up the discution on IRC, there is no hurry to do that.
I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository.
Cheers,
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository.
I got answers/help from upstream. I want underline that they are really nice and it's a pleasure to work with them.
So, I built a fresh new PKGBUILD[1] for 0.7.0.
Some notes on differences with AUR version: - docker is built dynamically (and no more upstream blob) - use upstream version for bash and zsh completions - move of dockerinit from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/docker [2] - use improved systemd service file (e.g make-rpivate) [3]
Now I need to test this new package more deeply.
And we're waiting for Daniel words about renaming current docker package. In case this is not possible, upstream advice to use lxc-docker[4].
Cheers,
[1] https://github.com/seblu/archpkg/blob/master/docker/PKGBUILD [2] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/pull/2924 [3] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/pull/2925 [4] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/blob/master/hack/PACKAGERS.md
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository.
I got answers/help from upstream. I want underline that they are really nice and it's a pleasure to work with them.
So, I built a fresh new PKGBUILD[1] for 0.7.0.
Some notes on differences with AUR version:
- docker is built dynamically (and no more upstream blob)
- use upstream version for bash and zsh completions
- move of dockerinit from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/docker [2]
- use improved systemd service file (e.g make-rpivate) [3]
Now I need to test this new package more deeply.
And we're waiting for Daniel words about renaming current docker package. In case this is not possible, upstream advice to use lxc-docker[4].
I had already answered:
----- Hi,
the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3. Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades. Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra.
But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker or am I wrong on this?
Cheers, Daniel ------
That was the reason for the discussion about the way we should rename it and the epoch=1 solution which Alexander mentioned. ;-)
Cheers, Daniel
On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote:
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
That was the reason for the discussion about the way we should rename it and the epoch=1 solution which Alexander mentioned. ;-)
I made tests with a local repository with a docker-tray[1] package and a docker package with epoch set to 1. It replaces docker version<=1.5 and it conflicts with docker (because of /usr/bin/docker). No need to provides, there is no reverse dep on docker[2] and it will create issue in the future. It works well.
Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready.
Cheers,
[1] https://horus.seblu.net/~seblu/docker-tray/PKGBUILD [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/docker/
On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote:
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready.
Daniel,
"new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there something I can do to help you to go through this?
Cheers,
Could a dev please rename docker in [extra] to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker<=1.5')?
Daniel Isenmann has already okayed this.
- Alexander / xyproto
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:00:25AM +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Could a dev please rename docker in [extra] to docker-tray and add replaces=('docker<=1.5')?
Daniel Isenmann has already okayed this.
- Alexander / xyproto
Won't this lead to a serious problem ?
- i install docker (0.7.0) (the one i want is docker.io one) - i update and get docker-tray because of this replace ?
Ike,
No, because the new docker package will have epoch=1, like discussed above.
- Alexander / xyproto
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Ike,
No, because the new docker package will have epoch=1, like discussed above.
- Alexander / xyproto
right, sorry i forgot
thx
Am 04.12.2013 00:21, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote:
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready.
Daniel,
"new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there something I can do to help you to go through this?
Cheers,
Can another dev do this step? I have nearly no free time at the moment to do anything. Would be great if someone can do this.
Thanks Daniel
On 05/12/2013 09:15, Daniel Isenmann wrote:
Am 04.12.2013 00:21, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 28/11/2013 22:33, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 28/11/2013 07:22, Daniel Isenmann wrote:
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Daniel, could you handle the renaming and replacing of docker by docker-tray[1] in extra (I cannot do it)? That let me push new docker as soon as it's ready.
Daniel,
"new" docker is in community svn and ready to be pushed. PKGBUILD I provided to you should allow smooth upgrade for users. Is there something I can do to help you to go through this?
Cheers,
Can another dev do this step? I have nearly no free time at the moment to do anything. Would be great if someone can do this.
Rename was done by Bartłomiej. New docker package was pushed to community.
Thanks to everyone that helped.
Cheers,
Nice work on the docker package! Thanks for pushing it. And thanks to Bartłomiej for renaming.
- Alexander / xyproto
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org