151–160 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your CI server running in a container that is itself executing Docker commands.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this does not require DinD. You can connect to the host’s Docker daemon. (Other interfaces such as K8S are also much safer.)
It's compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you're using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead. RedHat seems to be pushing a standard ecosystem for Linux: systemd, Wayland, SELinux, GNOME, and now maybe podman. I've been on Linux for a while; it's a welcome change from all the fragmentation I'm used to. Whereas others try to work around the kernel and implemen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you are just too far into docker. I noticed that a lot of default workflows (needlessly) depended on docker running with privileges. One big reason for that seem to be Mac users that only know docker from inside a VM. However, if you think about what you're really needing for CI you will easily see that docker-in-docker gains you nothing. You can as well use plain docker (or podman). The same holds for privileg…
Okay, I want to build a container image using gitlab CI, which runs builds in docker. How would you like me to build an image without using docker in docker, or buildah in docker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the ideal is using Nix to manage development dependencies and to handle building minimal docker images for deployment.
Why not just use nix at that point? You can at least retain the advantage of having truly immutable and reproducible builds. I use docker for most of my clients' work but for in house stuff I just use nix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the ideal is using Nix to manage development dependencies and to handle building minimal docker images for deployment.
Why not just use nix at that point? You can at least retain the advantage of having truly immutable and reproducible builds. I use docker for most of my clients' work but for in house stuff I just use nix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally, I've worked with developers at Redhat and Canonical, and the Redhat developers had passion. They really believed in open source and the linux community. In comparison Canonical seemed like Just Another Software Company to me.
My experience has consistently been the opposite.
It's compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you're using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead. RedHat seems to be pushing a standard ecosystem for Linux: systemd, Wayland, SELinux, GNOME, and now maybe podman. I've been on Linux for a while; it's a welcome change from all the fragmentation I'm used to. Whereas others try to work around the kernel and implemen…
I think governments prefer redhat because they are consistent and they accept gobs of cash to promise security patches to software that are past their support window.
Meta: there seems to be two kind of comments here... 1) why the hell would you want Docker-in-Docker 2) I can’t live without Docker-in-Docker
Meta: there seems to be two kind of comments here... 1) why the hell would you want Docker-in-Docker 2) I can’t live without Docker-in-Docker
Sometimes I feel grateful having let all these ephemeral things things pass by without having needed to learn something that was going to stop being "in" so soon.