Docker's Makefile uses "docker" namespace #2
Comments
|
oh man hmmmm maybe dockerdev, docker-engine, naming things is so hard, what if we just did engine |
|
For this image's name, or as a PR against |
|
oh def our image should be called docker but idk what to name the dev docker we build and test in ;) |
|
Right, OK. 👍
"docker-dev" is an official image that has builds of Docker's own
Dockerfile, so maybe we should just use that same name? (especially since
it only has builds of the releases)
|
|
ah oerfect :) On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Tianon Gravi notifications@github.com
Jessie Frazelle |
|
perfect* On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jessica Frazelle me@jessfraz.com wrote:
Jessie Frazelle |
…docker" See docker-library/docker#2 for some of the context around this; essentially, we're looking to create an official `docker` image that includes the Docker CLI (and the dependencies necessary for easy Docker-in-Docker), but it makes sense to use the `docker` namespace for that image. The `docker-dev` official image is already builds of Docker's own `Dockerfile` (but specifically of releases), so this seemed like a good fit. 👍 Signed-off-by: Andrew "Tianon" Page <admwiggin@gmail.com>
|
Fixed by moby/moby#12936 👍 |
Docker's development
Makefilecurrently uses thedockernamespace for building development images: https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/3ea59f8991a4d70254582759044316e522a09ee9/Makefile#L29We need to decide if this is a problem, and whether we should fix it by naming this image something else, or by sending a PR to Docker.
Especially wondering @jfrazelle's opinion on this one.
I've just barely reorganized this repo so that we can have
docker:latestbe just the Docker CLI, anddocker:dindinclude all the hacky bits to do Docker-in-Docker, since they're pretty intrusive and require--privileged, and just being able to use the CLI from inside an image would definitely be useful.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: