Closed wking closed 8 years ago
And it looks like runC was reacting to strict wording in the spec which landed around opencontainers/specs#210. I'd suggested we punt that discussion here, so I'm open to having this PR be where we revisit the issue. I'm also ok punting again, and revisiting the “do we support piped-in configs?” issue at some other future point (but hopefully before spec v1.0).
Reviewed, looks good to me.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:13:13AM -0800, Mike Brown wrote:
Reviewed, looks good to me.
Rebased onto master (no conflicts) and merged. I forgot to add your Reviewed-by initially, which is why master is at 3f348cd but GitHub thinks this PR was merged in 92dc45c.
Personally I prefer a single config file. I want folks to be able to pipe their config into the
funC start
command (e.g. via a/dev/fd/3
pseudo-filesystem path, opencontainers/runc#202), and I have a working example that supports this without difficulty. But since opencontainers/runc#373 landed on 2015-11-16, runC has replaced their--config-file
and--runtime-file
flags with--bundle
, and the current goal of this repository is “keeping as much similarity with the existing runC command-line as possible” (ffdd70467), not “makes sense to Trevor” ;).