batou_ext.oci: Add support for podman
#204
Conversation
Ma27
force-pushed
the
FC-37959-podman
branch
2 times, most recently
from
db0e430 to
3476623
Compare
|
Considering how considerable the differences between podman and docker are I'd almost think about splitting it up into two Components 🤔 that might however introduce a bunch of copy-pasted code. This would also eliminate the need to specifiy the backend for every single container. |
|
Given that
I'd argue that it would be fine to keep it as-is.
Hmm... I'd have to check whether the current approach allows podman & docker in parallel in the first place now that I think of it. You set the backend globally in NixOS. |
Yeah, backend is set globally, so doing it per-container here doesn't make sense. |
|
@PhilTaken the backend setting is now done via another component. |
|
I like the podmanruntime component here, that simplifies usage a bunch. I still think theres almost too much complexity in the ocicontainer component here but I cannot think of a good solution. Did you test this with a reasonably complex deployment? |
FC-37959 We mostly want this for healthchecks that must pass before the unit is actually active. This is kept intentionally simple, only healthchecks via sd_notify are supported. Mixing containers in systemd units with `healthy` and `conmon` strategy leads to setups with conflicting requirements (linger vs no linger) and it's far too easy to end up with an unsupported configuration (and containers not behaving properly).
| @@ -108,6 +172,12 @@ class Container(Component): | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| def configure(self): | |||
| self.backend = ( | |||
| "podman" | |||
| if self.require("oci:podman", strict=False, host=self.host) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering whether we want to make it this implicit.
This might cause a docker assuming container being executed by podman.
Not considering it a blocker though
FC-37959
We mostly want this for healthchecks that must pass before the unit is actually active.