Docker installed by default due to cockpit dependency chain

[Václav Pavlín]

Hi,

I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd like to 
bring up this dependency "issue":

We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was 
just @core. This installed

fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)

I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think 
docker should be part of such minimal install..

My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
fedora-release-server
     Requires: cockpit

docker-io
     Requires: cockpit-docker

This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal 
install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Vašek

[Stef Walter]

On 05.03.2015 15:13, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd like to
> bring up this dependency "issue":
>
> We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was
> just @core. This installed
>
> fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
>
> I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think
> docker should be part of such minimal install..
>
> My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
> fedora-release-server
>     Requires: cockpit
>
> docker-io
>     Requires: cockpit-docker
>
> This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal
> install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.

It is indeed up to the Fedora Server WG which features (and packages)
Fedora Server has installed by default.

In Cockpit we will try and respect that, and indeed it is incorrect for
Cockpit to be dragging in large features via dependencies.

A few notes:

* It seems like docker is (becoming?) a staple feature of a modern
   server, much like sendmail would have been a decade ago.

* Based on user feedback, the Containers page is the most used feature
   of Cockpit.

* docker is only available on x86_64 ... ditto for cockpit-docker

* Since the cockpit-0.41 release, we can remove cockpit-docker and the
   'Containers' UI will disappear within Cockpit. Previously it was more
   tightly bound.

* The cockpit-docker package has no dependencies other than docker and
   consists solely of a few resource files (javascript, html, etc.)

Cheers,

Stef

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, March 06, 2015 07:32:21 AM Stef Walter wrote:
> On 05.03.2015 15:13, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd like to
> > bring up this dependency "issue":
> >
> > We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was
> > just @core. This installed
> >
> > fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
> >
> > I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think
> > docker should be part of such minimal install..
> >
> > My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
> > fedora-release-server
> > Requires: cockpit
> >
> > docker-io
> > Requires: cockpit-docker
> >
> > This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal
> > install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.
>
> It is indeed up to the Fedora Server WG which features (and packages)
> Fedora Server has installed by default.
>
> In Cockpit we will try and respect that, and indeed it is incorrect for
> Cockpit to be dragging in large features via dependencies.
>
> A few notes:
>
> It seems like docker is (becoming?) a staple feature of a modern
> server, much like sendmail would have been a decade ago.
>
> Based on user feedback, the Containers page is the most used feature
> of Cockpit.
>
> docker is only available on x86_64 ... ditto for cockpit-docker

Not true, docker is available and works on arm. there is also no reason why 
i686 can not be supported also.

Dennis
> Since the cockpit-0.41 release, we can remove cockpit-docker and the
> 'Containers' UI will disappear within Cockpit. Previously it was more
> tightly bound.
>
> The cockpit-docker package has no dependencies other than docker and
> consists solely of a few resource files (javascript, html, etc.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stef

[Stephen Gallagher]

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> > On Friday, March 06, 2015 07:32:21 AM Stef Walter wrote:
> > > On 05.03.2015 15:13, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd like to
> > > bring up this dependency "issue":
> > >
> > > We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was
> > > just @core. This installed
> > >
> > > fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
> > >
> > > I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think
> > > docker should be part of such minimal install..
> > >
> > > My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
> > > fedora-release-server
> > >
> > > Requires: cockpit
> > >
> > > docker-io
> > >
> > > Requires: cockpit-docker
> > >
> > > This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal
> > > install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.
> >
> > It is indeed up to the Fedora Server WG which features (and packages)
> > Fedora Server has installed by default.
> >
> > In Cockpit we will try and respect that, and indeed it is incorrect for
> > Cockpit to be dragging in large features via dependencies.
> >
> > A few notes:
> >
> > It seems like docker is (becoming?) a staple feature of a modern
> > server, much like sendmail would have been a decade ago.
> >
> > Based on user feedback, the Containers page is the most used feature
> > of Cockpit.
> >
> > docker is only available on x86_64 ... ditto for cockpit-docker
>
> Not true, docker is available and works on arm. there is also no reason why 
> i686 can not be supported also.

Last I heard, docker was not supported on i686 upstream and there were known issues with it. Has that changed?
> Dennis
> > Since the cockpit-0.41 release, we can remove cockpit-docker and the
> > 'Containers' UI will disappear within Cockpit. Previously it was more
> > tightly bound.
> >
> > The cockpit-docker package has no dependencies other than docker and
> > consists solely of a few resource files (javascript, html, etc.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Stef
>
> server mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 07:36:18 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 06, 2015 07:32:21 AM Stef Walter wrote:
> > > > On 05.03.2015 15:13, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd like
> > > > to
> > > > bring up this dependency "issue":
> > > >
> > > > We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was
> > > > just @core. This installed
> > > >
> > > > fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
> > > >
> > > > I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think
> > > > docker should be part of such minimal install..
> > > >
> > > > My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
> > > > fedora-release-server
> > > >
> > > > Requires: cockpit
> > > >
> > > > docker-io
> > > >
> > > > Requires: cockpit-docker
> > > >
> > > > This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal
> > > > install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.
> > >
> > > It is indeed up to the Fedora Server WG which features (and packages)
> > > Fedora Server has installed by default.
> > >
> > > In Cockpit we will try and respect that, and indeed it is incorrect for
> > > Cockpit to be dragging in large features via dependencies.
> > >
> > > A few notes:
> > >
> > > It seems like docker is (becoming?) a staple feature of a modern
> > >
> > > server, much like sendmail would have been a decade ago.
> > >
> > > Based on user feedback, the Containers page is the most used feature
> > >
> > > of Cockpit.
> > >
> > > docker is only available on x86_64 ... ditto for cockpit-docker
> >
> > Not true, docker is available and works on arm. there is also no reason
> > why

i686 can not be supported also.
> >
>
> Last I heard, docker was not supported on i686 upstream and there were known
> issues with it. Has that changed?

docker upstream doesn't support arm either, it is not stopping us from doing 
so.  Upstream lives in an unrealistic world of only x86_64 it is just one of 
the many problems with  docker.  Does not mean we have to. our view is a bit 
more realistic.

Dennis

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 15:13 +0100, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd 
> like to
> bring up this dependency "issue":
>
> We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages was 
> just @core. This installed
>
> fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)

This is actually a bug. If you install only @core, it should be 
pulling in fedora-release-nonproduct, not fedora-release-server. I 
think this is fallout from the change in depsolver from yum to DNF. 
(Yum would attempt to satisfy the dep with the shortest dependency 
chain; DNF uses a different algorithm).

Please file a BZ.
> I understand why Cockpit is installed by default but I don't think 
> docker should be part of such minimal install..
>
> My proposal would be to change the dependency so that
> fedora-release-server
>      Requires: cockpit
>
> docker-io
>      Requires: cockpit-docker
>
> This would mean non-existent Containers page in Cockpit in minimal 
> install which would magically appear when the user installs docker.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks, Vašek

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 01:44 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 15:13 +0100, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd  
> > like to
> > bring up this dependency "issue":
> >
> > We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages 
> > was  just @core. This installed
> >
> > fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
>
> This is actually a bug. If you install only @core, it should be  
> pulling in fedora-release-nonproduct, not fedora-release-server. I  
> think this is fallout from the change in depsolver from yum to DNF.  
> (Yum would attempt to satisfy the dep with the shortest dependency  
> chain; DNF uses a different algorithm).
>
> Please file a BZ.

If you do/did file a BZ, Vaclav, can you set it to block 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192182 ? Thanks.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 15:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 01:44 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 15:13 +0100, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am not sure if that was intentional or not but to be sure, I'd 
> > >   like to
> > > bring up this dependency "issue":
> > >
> > > We've tried to install minimal Fedora with KS where in %packages 
> > > was  just @core. This installed
> > >
> > > fedora-release-server -> cockpit -> cockpit-docker -> docker(-io)
> >
> > This is actually a bug. If you install only @core, it should be   
> > pulling in fedora-release-nonproduct, not fedora-release-server. I 
> >   think this is fallout from the change in depsolver from yum to 
> > DNF.   (Yum would attempt to satisfy the dep with the shortest 
> > dependency   chain; DNF uses a different algorithm).
> >
> > Please file a BZ.
>
> If you do/did file a BZ, Vaclav, can you set it to block  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192182? Thanks.

Just to follow up here, I've submitted patches[1] to rel-eng to 
eliminate the per-product conflict mayhem entirely (and to ensure that 
@core specifying no product package doesn't need one and shouldn't 
pull one in at all).

This issue should be fixed as a side-effect.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/rel-eng/2015-
March/019569.html