You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Clemens Stolle <kl...@apache.org> on 2015/12/17 23:28:50 UTC
Applied for official Docker image
Hey couch potatoes,
I just submitted CouchDB to the "official-images" repo. If the review goes well, CouchDB will have an official Docker image soon (like pretty much every database out there). That means users will be able to "docker run couchdb" instead of "docker run klaemo/couchdb".
You can check the status at https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288.
I submitted version 1.6.1 as well as 2.0-dev. That should make it pretty easy for people to give 2.0 a spin. Of course, I'll add future releases as they come out. When the review goes through, I might ask you for help with the Readme for the Docker registry.
Let me know, if you have any questions or concerns.
Cheers,
Clemens
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Heya Clemens,
this is really cool, thank you! :)
* * *
Speaking of Docker, I thought it might be a good way to get more people to test the upcoming 2.0 release.
I gave it a spin earlier this week, but I am too much of a Docker n00b to understand what I’m doing and I didn’t really manage to get something running.
Could you maybe write up a n00b-friendly introduction in how to set up a 3-node cluster using klaemo/couchdb? Or at least just the three nodes, and then we can use the setup wizard or nmo to set up the cluster.
Thanks! <3 :)
Jan
--
> On 17 Dec 2015, at 23:28, Clemens Stolle <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey couch potatoes,
>
> I just submitted CouchDB to the "official-images" repo. If the review goes well, CouchDB will have an official Docker image soon (like pretty much every database out there). That means users will be able to "docker run couchdb" instead of "docker run klaemo/couchdb".
>
> You can check the status at https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288.
>
> I submitted version 1.6.1 as well as 2.0-dev. That should make it pretty easy for people to give 2.0 a spin. Of course, I'll add future releases as they come out. When the review goes through, I might ask you for help with the Readme for the Docker registry.
>
> Let me know, if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Cheers,
> Clemens
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@skunkwerks.at>.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, at 11:44 AM, Alexander Shorin wrote:
> Hi Clemens!
>
> My own opinion below:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> > - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>
> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>
> > - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>
> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
> for reproduceable builds.
> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
> that's not true.
If it's helpful, we can use the ppa:couchdb/dev for this, and use
couchdb2 as the package name for the interim. Dropping a 2.0 over top of
a 1.x install would be very much against Principle of Least
Astonishment. This approach is very common in FreeBSD ports, for example
with puppet3 and puppet4 to give people a clear distinction.
> > - How does CouchDB handle signals? Currently couchdb doesn’t respond to SIGTERM. I’m not sure if this is caused by my wrapper shell script.
>
> SIGTERM works correctly so far.
>
Worth clarifying here that Erlang/OTP itself is not signal friendly.
There are a number of daemons to help address this, but IIRC all of them
have non-ALv2 taints and/or heavy dependencies.
https://github.com/ShoreTel-Inc/erld
https://github.com/jkingsbery/sighandler
https://github.com/erlware/erlnixify
A competent C programmer could make short work of a GPL-free version of
erld (hint hint) though.
Things a signal handler needs to address:
- rotating logs SIGHUP?
- SIGTERM & friends for shutting down
- terminating BEAM if/when it becomes unresponsive a la heart
- ... others?
The new systemd approach (& presumably docker too) means that the whole
of couchdb runs in a namespace which is then cleaned up. I really like
this, considering how much effort was consumed in getting the original
couchdb script to work correctly.
A+
Dave
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Clemens Stolle <cl...@fastmail.com>.
Hi Joan,
you’re absolutely right that a docker container should only run a single node.
That’s what we should do in the future. Right now it starts up the dev cluster with
three nodes. I think that’s reasonable for the 2.0 „alpha-be-careful-testing-only“
version, though, as it shows off the new cluster capabilities quite nicely and makes
it extremely easy for people to take a look at the upcoming 2.0.
Clemens
> Am 01.02.2016 um 18:43 schrieb Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>:
>
> I've not been following this message trail carefully, but I have a question.
>
> Does the docker image run 3 instances within the same image, or is it a
> single node version? The reason I ask is that, in deployment, which is
> where I would expect docker to shine, you'd **NEVER** want to run 3
> nodes on the same machine. It basically removes the entire clustering
> feature from CouchDB.
>
> I'm happy to explain more if it's not clear why having the default docker
> image as a single node is strongly preferable.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jan Lehnardt" <ja...@apache.org>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:22:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: Applied for official Docker image
>>
>>
>>> On 01 Feb 2016, at 08:18, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@skunkwerks.at>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, at 02:19 AM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Shorin
>>>> <kx...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
>>>>>> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on
>>>>>> core
>>>>>> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> that it was probably too early to get it right).
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into
>>>>> our
>>>>> repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than
>>>>> start
>>>>> whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds
>>>>> official
>>>>> via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the scripts, as the only formal deliverable from
>>>> earlier
>>>> was a working Ubuntu 12.04 package of 1.6.1 (and we wouldn't have
>>>> had
>>>> a use for the scripts in any case, as we're not interested in
>>>> building
>>>> CouchDB ourselves, hence contracting that out to someone who knows
>>>> what they're doing).
>>>>
>>>> I'll let Dave comment about the new work, once we've got a
>>>> contract
>>>> hammered out, and he's been able to devote some time to the
>>>> project.
>>>> Again, it might be a bit before that happens.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Eli
>>>
>>> The scripts are public[1] and we could merge them happily if it
>>> makes
>>> sense where they go to. I should explain briefly how these are
>>> built, as
>>> this
>>> is relevant.
>>>
>>> The repo master branch includes the unpacked couchdb release
>>> tarball in
>>> the root, and a /debian/ folder with all the magic pixie dust. On
>>> each
>>> new
>>> release (whether of couchdb, updating packaging, or re-packaging
>>> for
>>> a new ubuntu release), do the following:
>>>
>>> - spin up a compatible Ubuntu box
>>> - provision with ansible [2]
>>> - bare clone the repo
>>> - check out only the /debian/ packaging directory (patches,
>>> dependency
>>> info)
>>> - unpack the new couchdb release
>>> - commit the "changes" to git
>>> - futz around with init scripts, systemd and whatever until couchdb
>>> works
>>>
>>> There's no particular reason why this shouldn't work for 2.0, more
>>> detail in
>>> the associated wiki[3].
>>>
>>> I updated the repo for 1.6.1 and supporting wily + xenial [4], the
>>> main
>>> change
>>> is integrating systemd changes and complying with the latest debian
>>> packaging tools, so this is a good base to continue from.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where these scripts would go in our ASF world, but
>>> they
>>> should
>>> be kept in step with any releases.
>>
>> I’d put them in couchdb.git/build-aux for now, that’s where I keep
>> scripts
>> that are run during configure/make. If this should be its own repo,
>> we can
>> apply for couchdb-package.git or something.
>>
>> Would the ./build-aux directory work for now?
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Finally, anybody wishing to contribute to the ppa or the build repo
>>> is
>>> welcome
>>> just email me (PPA) or send a PR (build repo).
>>> A+
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> [1]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad
>>> [2]: https://gist.github.com/dch/86982e187e97a9b23bf5
>>> [3]:
>>> https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad/wiki/creating-the-package
>>> [4]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/dev/
>>> [5]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/
>>
>>
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
I've not been following this message trail carefully, but I have a question.
Does the docker image run 3 instances within the same image, or is it a
single node version? The reason I ask is that, in deployment, which is
where I would expect docker to shine, you'd **NEVER** want to run 3
nodes on the same machine. It basically removes the entire clustering
feature from CouchDB.
I'm happy to explain more if it's not clear why having the default docker
image as a single node is strongly preferable.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Lehnardt" <ja...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:22:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Applied for official Docker image
>
>
> > On 01 Feb 2016, at 08:18, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@skunkwerks.at>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, at 02:19 AM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Shorin
> >> <kx...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
> >>> <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded
> >>>> back
> >>>> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
> >>>> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on
> >>>> core
> >>>> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough
> >>>> changed
> >>>> that it was probably too early to get it right).
> >>>
> >>> Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into
> >>> our
> >>> repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than
> >>> start
> >>> whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds
> >>> official
> >>> via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
> >>
> >> I don't have the scripts, as the only formal deliverable from
> >> earlier
> >> was a working Ubuntu 12.04 package of 1.6.1 (and we wouldn't have
> >> had
> >> a use for the scripts in any case, as we're not interested in
> >> building
> >> CouchDB ourselves, hence contracting that out to someone who knows
> >> what they're doing).
> >>
> >> I'll let Dave comment about the new work, once we've got a
> >> contract
> >> hammered out, and he's been able to devote some time to the
> >> project.
> >> Again, it might be a bit before that happens.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Eli
> >
> > The scripts are public[1] and we could merge them happily if it
> > makes
> > sense where they go to. I should explain briefly how these are
> > built, as
> > this
> > is relevant.
> >
> > The repo master branch includes the unpacked couchdb release
> > tarball in
> > the root, and a /debian/ folder with all the magic pixie dust. On
> > each
> > new
> > release (whether of couchdb, updating packaging, or re-packaging
> > for
> > a new ubuntu release), do the following:
> >
> > - spin up a compatible Ubuntu box
> > - provision with ansible [2]
> > - bare clone the repo
> > - check out only the /debian/ packaging directory (patches,
> > dependency
> > info)
> > - unpack the new couchdb release
> > - commit the "changes" to git
> > - futz around with init scripts, systemd and whatever until couchdb
> > works
> >
> > There's no particular reason why this shouldn't work for 2.0, more
> > detail in
> > the associated wiki[3].
> >
> > I updated the repo for 1.6.1 and supporting wily + xenial [4], the
> > main
> > change
> > is integrating systemd changes and complying with the latest debian
> > packaging tools, so this is a good base to continue from.
> >
> > I'm not sure where these scripts would go in our ASF world, but
> > they
> > should
> > be kept in step with any releases.
>
> I’d put them in couchdb.git/build-aux for now, that’s where I keep
> scripts
> that are run during configure/make. If this should be its own repo,
> we can
> apply for couchdb-package.git or something.
>
> Would the ./build-aux directory work for now?
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
> >
> > Finally, anybody wishing to contribute to the ppa or the build repo
> > is
> > welcome
> > just email me (PPA) or send a PR (build repo).
> > A+
> > Dave
> >
> > [1]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad
> > [2]: https://gist.github.com/dch/86982e187e97a9b23bf5
> > [3]:
> > https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad/wiki/creating-the-package
> > [4]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/dev/
> > [5]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/
>
>
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 01 Feb 2016, at 08:18, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@skunkwerks.at> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, at 02:19 AM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
>>> <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded back
>>>> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
>>>> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on core
>>>> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough changed
>>>> that it was probably too early to get it right).
>>>
>>> Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into our
>>> repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than start
>>> whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds official
>>> via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
>>
>> I don't have the scripts, as the only formal deliverable from earlier
>> was a working Ubuntu 12.04 package of 1.6.1 (and we wouldn't have had
>> a use for the scripts in any case, as we're not interested in building
>> CouchDB ourselves, hence contracting that out to someone who knows
>> what they're doing).
>>
>> I'll let Dave comment about the new work, once we've got a contract
>> hammered out, and he's been able to devote some time to the project.
>> Again, it might be a bit before that happens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eli
>
> The scripts are public[1] and we could merge them happily if it makes
> sense where they go to. I should explain briefly how these are built, as
> this
> is relevant.
>
> The repo master branch includes the unpacked couchdb release tarball in
> the root, and a /debian/ folder with all the magic pixie dust. On each
> new
> release (whether of couchdb, updating packaging, or re-packaging for
> a new ubuntu release), do the following:
>
> - spin up a compatible Ubuntu box
> - provision with ansible [2]
> - bare clone the repo
> - check out only the /debian/ packaging directory (patches, dependency
> info)
> - unpack the new couchdb release
> - commit the "changes" to git
> - futz around with init scripts, systemd and whatever until couchdb
> works
>
> There's no particular reason why this shouldn't work for 2.0, more
> detail in
> the associated wiki[3].
>
> I updated the repo for 1.6.1 and supporting wily + xenial [4], the main
> change
> is integrating systemd changes and complying with the latest debian
> packaging tools, so this is a good base to continue from.
>
> I'm not sure where these scripts would go in our ASF world, but they
> should
> be kept in step with any releases.
I’d put them in couchdb.git/build-aux for now, that’s where I keep scripts
that are run during configure/make. If this should be its own repo, we can
apply for couchdb-package.git or something.
Would the ./build-aux directory work for now?
Best
Jan
--
>
> Finally, anybody wishing to contribute to the ppa or the build repo is
> welcome
> just email me (PPA) or send a PR (build repo).
> A+
> Dave
>
> [1]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad
> [2]: https://gist.github.com/dch/86982e187e97a9b23bf5
> [3]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad/wiki/creating-the-package
> [4]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/dev/
> [5]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@skunkwerks.at>.
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, at 02:19 AM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
> > <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded back
> >> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
> >> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on core
> >> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough changed
> >> that it was probably too early to get it right).
> >
> > Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into our
> > repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than start
> > whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds official
> > via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
>
> I don't have the scripts, as the only formal deliverable from earlier
> was a working Ubuntu 12.04 package of 1.6.1 (and we wouldn't have had
> a use for the scripts in any case, as we're not interested in building
> CouchDB ourselves, hence contracting that out to someone who knows
> what they're doing).
>
> I'll let Dave comment about the new work, once we've got a contract
> hammered out, and he's been able to devote some time to the project.
> Again, it might be a bit before that happens.
>
> Cheers,
> Eli
The scripts are public[1] and we could merge them happily if it makes
sense where they go to. I should explain briefly how these are built, as
this
is relevant.
The repo master branch includes the unpacked couchdb release tarball in
the root, and a /debian/ folder with all the magic pixie dust. On each
new
release (whether of couchdb, updating packaging, or re-packaging for
a new ubuntu release), do the following:
- spin up a compatible Ubuntu box
- provision with ansible [2]
- bare clone the repo
- check out only the /debian/ packaging directory (patches, dependency
info)
- unpack the new couchdb release
- commit the "changes" to git
- futz around with init scripts, systemd and whatever until couchdb
works
There's no particular reason why this shouldn't work for 2.0, more
detail in
the associated wiki[3].
I updated the repo for 1.6.1 and supporting wily + xenial [4], the main
change
is integrating systemd changes and complying with the latest debian
packaging tools, so this is a good base to continue from.
I'm not sure where these scripts would go in our ASF world, but they
should
be kept in step with any releases.
Finally, anybody wishing to contribute to the ppa or the build repo is
welcome
just email me (PPA) or send a PR (build repo).
A+
Dave
[1]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad
[2]: https://gist.github.com/dch/86982e187e97a9b23bf5
[3]: https://github.com/dch/couchdb-launchpad/wiki/creating-the-package
[4]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/dev/
[5]: https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by "Eli Stevens (Gmail)" <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
> <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded back
>> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
>> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on core
>> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough changed
>> that it was probably too early to get it right).
>
> Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into our
> repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than start
> whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds official
> via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
I don't have the scripts, as the only formal deliverable from earlier
was a working Ubuntu 12.04 package of 1.6.1 (and we wouldn't have had
a use for the scripts in any case, as we're not interested in building
CouchDB ourselves, hence contracting that out to someone who knows
what they're doing).
I'll let Dave comment about the new work, once we've got a contract
hammered out, and he's been able to devote some time to the project.
Again, it might be a bit before that happens.
Cheers,
Eli
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
Hi Eli!
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
<wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Clemens Stolle
> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>>
>> I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
>> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
>
> Those are the result of the work that my company's contracted dch@ for.
>
> The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded back
> into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
> official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on core
> 2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough changed
> that it was probably too early to get it right).
Hm...nice! Do you have these build scripts? We can put them into our
repo now even for 1.6 state. That would be still better than start
whole work from scratch and I think we can make these builds official
via CI services that will run Ubuntu anyway.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by "Eli Stevens (Gmail)" <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Clemens Stolle
<cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>
> I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
Those are the result of the work that my company's contracted dch@ for.
The intent was to hopefully have the build scripts, etc. folded back
into the main repo to make it easier for future releases to have
official packages, but I think that everyone was too focused on core
2.0 issues to get too involved in packaging (and also enough changed
that it was probably too early to get it right).
We're in the process of setting up a second contract, so hopefully
some prerelease 2.0 versions will start showing up there in a couple
months. Hopefully the work will get enough traction to become part of
the formal release process at some point.
Cheers,
Eli
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Clemens Stolle
<cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle
>> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Clemens!
>>>>
>>>> My own opinion below:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
>>>> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>>>>
>>>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>>>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>>>
>>> I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
>>> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
>>
>> Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall
>> that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to
>> CC, so may be he can clarify this moment.
>> Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section.
>
> This is confusing. The ubuntu packages are listed in the download section on the website. I think I’ll just keep building from source.
Oh...really. Seems like I miss something. Then you can try (:
>>>>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>>>>
>>>> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
>>>> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
>>>> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
>>>> for reproduceable builds.
>>>> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
>>>> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
>>>> that's not true.
>>>
>>> The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to ease testing.
>>
>> I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha
>> image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update
>> this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be
>> 2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you
>> publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef
>> commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides
>> reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were
>> made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process
>> could be easily automated.
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>
> While I’d be all for it, according to this comment [1] the Docker folks would prefer not to do that.
>
> [1] https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288#issuecomment-173604247
>
> Maybe once there are official pre-releases like alphas, betas or RCs it’s more feasible.
Ok, seems like there is nothing much to do then.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Clemens Stolle <cl...@fastmail.com>.
> Am 25.01.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle
> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Clemens!
>>>
>>> My own opinion below:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
>>> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>>>
>>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>>
>> I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
>> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
>
> Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall
> that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to
> CC, so may be he can clarify this moment.
> Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section.
This is confusing. The ubuntu packages are listed in the download section on the website. I think I’ll just keep building from source.
>
>>>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>>>
>>> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
>>> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
>>> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
>>> for reproduceable builds.
>>> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
>>> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
>>> that's not true.
>>
>> The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to ease testing.
>
> I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha
> image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update
> this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be
> 2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you
> publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef
> commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides
> reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were
> made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process
> could be easily automated.
>
> What do you think about this?
While I’d be all for it, according to this comment [1] the Docker folks would prefer not to do that.
[1] https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288#issuecomment-173604247
Maybe once there are official pre-releases like alphas, betas or RCs it’s more feasible.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle
<cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Clemens!
>>
>> My own opinion below:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
>> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>>
>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
>
> I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall
that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to
CC, so may be he can clarify this moment.
Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section.
>>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>>
>> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
>> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
>> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
>> for reproduceable builds.
>> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
>> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
>> that's not true.
>
> The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to ease testing.
I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha
image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update
this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be
2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you
publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef
commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides
reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were
made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process
could be easily automated.
What do you think about this?
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Clemens Stolle <cl...@fastmail.com>.
Thanks Alexander!
> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Clemens!
>
> My own opinion below:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
> <cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>
> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
I was referring to this PPA https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable
Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
>
>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>
> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
> for reproduceable builds.
> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
> that's not true.
The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to ease testing.
>
>> - How does CouchDB handle signals? Currently couchdb doesn’t respond to SIGTERM. I’m not sure if this is caused by my wrapper shell script.
>
> SIGTERM works correctly so far.
I don’t really understand why it doesn’t in the container, though.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
Hi Clemens!
My own opinion below:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
<cl...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
for reproduceable builds.
Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
that's not true.
> - How does CouchDB handle signals? Currently couchdb doesn’t respond to SIGTERM. I’m not sure if this is caused by my wrapper shell script.
SIGTERM works correctly so far.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Clemens Stolle <cl...@fastmail.com>.
Hey CouchDB devs,
I got some feedback for the official image proposal (see https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288#issuecomment-173365497)
I’d like to get some feedback from you for the following questions:
- Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
- Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
- How does CouchDB handle signals? Currently couchdb doesn’t respond to SIGTERM. I’m not sure if this is caused by my wrapper shell script.
Thanks for your input.
Clemens
> Am 18.12.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
>
> cool thank you <3
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Clemens Stolle <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hey couch potatoes,
>>
>> I just submitted CouchDB to the "official-images" repo. If the review goes well, CouchDB will have an official Docker image soon (like pretty much every database out there). That means users will be able to "docker run couchdb" instead of "docker run klaemo/couchdb".
>>
>> You can check the status at https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288.
>>
>> I submitted version 1.6.1 as well as 2.0-dev. That should make it pretty easy for people to give 2.0 a spin. Of course, I'll add future releases as they come out. When the review goes through, I might ask you for help with the Readme for the Docker registry.
>>
>> Let me know, if you have any questions or concerns.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Clemens
Re: Applied for official Docker image
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
cool thank you <3
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Clemens Stolle <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey couch potatoes,
>
> I just submitted CouchDB to the "official-images" repo. If the review goes well, CouchDB will have an official Docker image soon (like pretty much every database out there). That means users will be able to "docker run couchdb" instead of "docker run klaemo/couchdb".
>
> You can check the status at https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288.
>
> I submitted version 1.6.1 as well as 2.0-dev. That should make it pretty easy for people to give 2.0 a spin. Of course, I'll add future releases as they come out. When the review goes through, I might ask you for help with the Readme for the Docker registry.
>
> Let me know, if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Cheers,
> Clemens