On 04/21/2015 08:50 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > On 04/21/2015 08:55 AM, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar >> <lsm5 at fedoraproject.org> wrote: >>> I've pretty much decided that 'docker' in virt SIG would only track upstream >>> sources (no RH patches in it). Don't want this to sound like "I don't care >>> what anyone says", but docker upstream and many CentOS users want a build >>> which will only track upstream docker sources. Having 'docker' in virt SIG to >>> be this build sounds like the way to go. >> It sounds like you care what "many CentOS users want", which is hardly >> "I don't care what anyone says". :-) >> >> That sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision. >> >> -George >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS-devel mailing list >> CentOS-devel at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > I have not chimed in on this yet, but the patches include stuff to make > docker run better on a > systemd based system. Going purely upstream eliminates us from > experimenting and testing > some of our ideas. > > Current patches include fixes for SELinux, patches to allow systemd to > run within a container without > requiring --privileged mode. Handling of multiple registries, Proper > integration into the systemd, MachineCtl, journald. > > And most importantly customers running on rhel will have a different > experience then on Centos. Which is why I thought we want RH type behavior (ie patches) on both our fast moving and RHEL Atomic Host downstream branches for C7. We need stuff that works correctly with SELINUX and systemd on CentOS-7. So, IMHO, we want newer docker and RH patches. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150421/a8e883e1/attachment-0008.sig>