Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:34:19 +0800 From: Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> To: Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> Cc: FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>, Doug Rabson <dfr@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dockerfile to Bastille interpreter/translator Message-ID: <D18CBB65-75CC-442C-A908-A7A62B033D7A@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAHieY7S0XPZhwwaGG0a-qRbJO9gMM1uEa-ZYUr1dZyjYE8k6wA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHieY7S0XPZhwwaGG0a-qRbJO9gMM1uEa-ZYUr1dZyjYE8k6wA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jan 10, 2024, at 6:27 PM, Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> wrote: > > I understand there's an ongoing effort to support Linux Docker images "natively" through amd64 translation layer to the FBSD kernel. I think that is a great endeavour but it got me thinking that perhaps there's an alternative way to leverage the full power of FBSD and Bastille. > > If you look at Dockerfile, they mostly follow the same pattern: > 1 - package manager installs > 2 - system commands > 3 - package, inheritance > 4 - repeat > 5 - launch entrypoint > > The package manager AFAICT are only 3: alpine, debian, red hat > The commands are almost translatable 1:1 to Bastille > > So my question is, has anybody thought or have started work on an Dockerfile interpreter that can build native Bastille/ZFS "images" from a Dockerfile ? If I read you right, you may look at buildah / podman, and the runtime runj [1] . Good luck :) 1. https://github.com/samuelkarp/runj > > I think most of the work would be creating and maintaining the package names and their equivs which for the most part will be very similar to FBSD ports. > > Any thoughts? > > Best, > > -- > Alex > > > > > Best regards, Zhenlei
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D18CBB65-75CC-442C-A908-A7A62B033D7A>