Closed arschles closed 8 years ago
I think we should leave this in the Dockerfile, IMO. That way we can still use this docker image outside of kubernetes without having to know the boot incantation.
I think this also break things as /bin/boot is not called in entrypoint.sh from what I can see.
Sorry about the upcoming wall of text:
@technosophos I made this change so I could use the mc
client in the image locally, for debugging purposes. I had intended to back it out but realized that, since this image has more than 1 artifact in it (even though that may not be a best practice), I believe it's overall more flexibly to not have an ENTRYPOINT
.
I won't say that we should never use ENTRYPOINT
, but in this case I think the flexibility of removing it is worthwhile.
Relating to what @bacongobbler said, I could certainly add the CMD
back in, and I'm now thinking that is probably a happy medium - we could remove the command:
from the manifest while keeping the simplicity and retaining the aforementioned flexibility.
Also, the Makefile builds a builder
binary in this project instead of a boot
. I know the prototype repo builds boot
so I'm considering it standard. I've created https://github.com/deis/builder/issues/37 to make the change later.
Thoughts on any of the above?
+1 on migrating the ENTRYPOINT to the boot script. That'll give you the ability to use the mc client while still retaining backwards compat.
Sounds good. The binary named builder
is an artifact of the 1.x tree and should be changed.
tracking the builder
=>boot
change in https://github.com/deis/builder/issues/37
Im good with this . I'll give LGTM once the rebase is done
closing, as #72 made these changes anyway
What's your thinking about how we should do this across projects? Is this solving a special case, or are you thinking this is the way we should do things?