Add docker support

[phil-opp]

Continuing the discussion from #368 and #222. Relevant comments: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Required steps for docker support:

• Add a Dockerfile that allows building (and running) this project (Docker: Add a Dockerfile and Makefile targets #373)
• Add a short tutorial that explains how to use docker with this project.
• Mention the docker support in the first post (alongside/instead the mention of Vagrant).

[andre-richter]

Hi phil,

thanks for opening. Short summary from previous discussions:
I would propose to use the redox Dockerfile + entrypoint as a basis.

As a first shot, I would envision providing a docker image that the user can use interactively like shown in
https://github.com/redox-os/redox/tree/master/docker#demo
https://github.com/andre-richter/docker-rust-persistent#demo

The advantage of this approach is that it is a transparent add-on to the native file structure of the project. Once a console into the docker container has been spawned, there is no difference to native setup in which the rust toolchain was installed locally.

I will be on vacation soon, so I guess I cannot start working on this before January.

[robert-w-gries]

I added Docker support to my kernel recently, using @andre-richter's kernel for reference. I found that adding these Makefile rules simplified the process most for me.

When you publish the Docker image, the steps to have a functional development enviroment are simply:

wget -qO- https://get.docker.com/ | sh
# Hosts with systemctl: systemctl start docker
make docker_run
make run # Inside of container

Note that docker needs root privileges to run out of the box. It's possible to run with non-root, but it needs additional steps

[Sh4d1]

Hey!

I did a PR #373 adding Docker support :)
I followed @andre-richter advice and used Redox idea.

Cheers :)

[robert-w-gries]

@Sh4d1 Nice work!

My two cents regarding the Makefile rules, the docker image default should be called blog_os. Or if it's published by Phil it could be called blog_os/rust_os or similar.

[Sh4d1]

You are right :) changed it to blog_os!

[andre-richter]

Awesome!

Some remarks from inspecting the code:

• The docker_run target is only building the iso, so you would not need --it I guess.
• Like redox, I think there would be a benefit of providing a target that spawns an interactive shell (docker_interactive ?). This would enable the user to repeat individual smaller make targets inside the docker shell, and not only the iso target.
• Instructions for deleting the local cache of cargo and rustup like in the redox readme might be beneficial.
• If the stuff above is included, maybe a separate readme makes sense so that the original readme doesn't get cluttered. I think one of phil's main objectives is to have the docker stuff clearly and cleanly separated from the "vanilla" way.

BR,
Andre

[Sh4d1]

Hey!

Okay, so I'll

• Modify the Makefile to include the interactive mode and remove the useless --it
• Modify the README to include instructions about deleting local cache and move the Building with docker part into another README located in the docker folder

Sounds good?

Patrik

[Sh4d1]

Okay, so now there are five rules concerning Docker in the Makefile

• docker_build which builds the docker image
• docker_iso which builds the iso
• docker_run which builds the iso & run via qemu
• docker_interactive which opens a shell in the container
• docker_clean which cleans the two volumes used by cargo & rustup

Do you think it belongs in the Makefile? Or somewhere else?

Cheers,

Patrik

[andre-richter]

Looks good to me. Provided two nitpick comments in the PR itself.

When using an interactive shell, I found it useful to have an indication via $PS1 that I am running in a Docker container. Otherwise you can easily get confused if you have several terminals open.

For redox, I pulled in a .bash_aliases to resolve this: https://github.com/redox-os/redox/blob/master/docker/.bash_aliases
You'd need to set the respective ENV variable too (https://github.com/redox-os/redox/blob/master/docker/Dockerfile#L3)

Kindly have a look if you think it is useful here too.

[Sh4d1]

Yep, I did not think about that! Pushed as well, but still the issue with the Makefile targets run and docker_build ..

[Gaelan]

Is this obsolete now?

[robert-w-gries]

Docker support looks done to me.

@phil-opp After closing this issue, you should mark the "Docker support" task in #360 as done too.

[phil-opp]

Yeah, I think this is done. Sorry for the delay. Thank you all for your contributions!

@phil-opp After closing this issue, you should mark the "Docker support" task in #360 as done too.

I updated the issue description.