[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Christian Stewart]

Hi all,

When introduced, the docker-containerd package was associated with
Docker Engine.

Now, the project is independent and called simply "containerd."

https://github.com/containerd/containerd

Is it worthwhile / standard practice to rename the Buildroot package
to "containerd"? The package is already independent from Docker.

There would need to be mappings from the legacy Config.in entries.

Thanks & best regards,
Christian Stewart

[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

 Hi Christian,

 Not much reaction to this RFC :-)

On 12/03/2021 22:00, Christian Stewart wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> When introduced, the docker-containerd package was associated with
> Docker Engine.
> 
> Now, the project is independent and called simply "containerd."
> 
> https://github.com/containerd/containerd
> 
> Is it worthwhile / standard practice to rename the Buildroot package
> to "containerd"? The package is already independent from Docker.

 It's done occasionally, there's no real rule for it. Personally I don't like
renames too much, because it makes upgrading buildroot harder (though the legacy
handling usually covers it pretty well). It also makes backporting patches more
difficult, and also consulting history.

 If you look at Config.in.legacy ("git log -G '[Rr]enamed' Config.in.legacy"),
you'll see that for most renames there was a reason. For example, cegui06 was
renamed because it was no longer version 6. The rename of rcw -> qoriq-rcw was
contributed by someone from NXP (i.e., the chip vendor behind qoriq) so that
also carries a bit more clout.

 That said, feel free to do this rename if you think it improved things. Since
there's only a single package that depends on it, it shouldn't be too hard to do
the rename.

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> There would need to be mappings from the legacy Config.in entries.
> 
> Thanks & best regards,
> Christian Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
> 

[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Christian Stewart]

Arnout,

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 11:39 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:

>  Hi Christian,
>
>  Not much reaction to this RFC :-)
>
> On 12/03/2021 22:00, Christian Stewart wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When introduced, the docker-containerd package was associated with
> > Docker Engine.
> >
> > Now, the project is independent and called simply "containerd."
> >
> > https://github.com/containerd/containerd
> >
> > Is it worthwhile / standard practice to rename the Buildroot package
> > to "containerd"? The package is already independent from Docker.
>
>  It's done occasionally, there's no real rule for it. Personally I don't
> like
> renames too much, because it makes upgrading buildroot harder (though the
> legacy
> handling usually covers it pretty well). It also makes backporting patches
> more
> difficult, and also consulting history.
>
>  If you look at Config.in.legacy ("git log -G '[Rr]enamed'
> Config.in.legacy"),
> you'll see that for most renames there was a reason. For example, cegui06
> was
> renamed because it was no longer version 6. The rename of rcw -> qoriq-rcw
> was
> contributed by someone from NXP (i.e., the chip vendor behind qoriq) so
> that
> also carries a bit more clout.
>
>  That said, feel free to do this rename if you think it improved things.
> Since
> there's only a single package that depends on it, it shouldn't be too hard
> to do
> the rename.
>

I'd rather do the rename now than wait until we have lots of dependencies
for it. Containerd is increasingly being used in non docker contexts like
Kubernetes and nerdctl, and should be similarly disassociated with docker
in the Buildroot naming.

Will submit a patch series for it.

Best,
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20210407/aafda5bc/attachment.html>

[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Matthew Weber]

Christian,


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian Stewart <christian@paral.in> wrote:

> Arnout,
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 11:39 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Christian,
>>
>>  Not much reaction to this RFC :-)
>>
>> On 12/03/2021 22:00, Christian Stewart wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > When introduced, the docker-containerd package was associated with
>> > Docker Engine.
>> >
>> > Now, the project is independent and called simply "containerd."
>> >
>> > https://github.com/containerd/containerd
>> >
>> > Is it worthwhile / standard practice to rename the Buildroot package
>> > to "containerd"? The package is already independent from Docker.
>>
>>  It's done occasionally, there's no real rule for it. Personally I don't
>> like
>> renames too much, because it makes upgrading buildroot harder (though the
>> legacy
>> handling usually covers it pretty well). It also makes backporting
>> patches more
>> difficult, and also consulting history.
>>
>>  If you look at Config.in.legacy ("git log -G '[Rr]enamed'
>> Config.in.legacy"),
>> you'll see that for most renames there was a reason. For example, cegui06
>> was
>> renamed because it was no longer version 6. The rename of rcw ->
>> qoriq-rcw was
>> contributed by someone from NXP (i.e., the chip vendor behind qoriq) so
>> that
>> also carries a bit more clout.
>>
>>  That said, feel free to do this rename if you think it improved things.
>> Since
>> there's only a single package that depends on it, it shouldn't be too
>> hard to do
>> the rename.
>>
>
> I'd rather do the rename now than wait until we have lots of dependencies
> for it. Containerd is increasingly being used in non docker contexts like
> Kubernetes and nerdctl, and should be similarly disassociated with docker
> in the Buildroot naming.
>

Ack renaming this sooner than later.  Containerd and other similar projects
are all working to be as Docker independent as possible and I could see
this naming raising questions / confusion amongst newcomers.

Regards,
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20210407/2d5fdf33/attachment.html>

[Buildroot] [RFC] rename docker-containerd package to containerd?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Stewart <christian@paral.in> writes:

 > Hi all,
 > When introduced, the docker-containerd package was associated with
 > Docker Engine.

 > Now, the project is independent and called simply "containerd."

 > https://github.com/containerd/containerd

 > Is it worthwhile / standard practice to rename the Buildroot package
 > to "containerd"? The package is already independent from Docker.

 > There would need to be mappings from the legacy Config.in entries.

Fine by me. Care to send a patch?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard