Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #101681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mooff <mooff@awful.cooking> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-09-12 23:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-09-14 09:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 8 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel
ps in cloud images mooff <mooff@awful.cooking> - 2021-09-12 23:10 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-09-13 03:10 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2021-09-13 20:30 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images mooff <mooff@awful.cooking> - 2021-09-13 22:20 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> - 2021-09-14 08:40 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2021-09-14 08:40 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-09-14 09:00 +0200
Re: ps in cloud images Michal Politowski <mpol+debian@meep.pl> - 2021-09-14 09:00 +0200
| From | mooff <mooff@awful.cooking> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-12 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | ps in cloud images |
| Message-ID | <CWETD-5kX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include procps in the default cloud images. I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could be offered which name the package we want (procps) Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-13 03:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CWIDT-7EB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101681 |
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 9:00 PM mooff wrote: > IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include > procps in the default cloud images. I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the place to discuss this. I note that procps is Priority: important and debootstrap installs priority required/important packages by default, so either something went wrong or the image build process is using the minbase variant or deliberately removing props after install. https://wiki.debian.org/Cloud#How_to_contribute -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-13 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CWYSl-1yj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101681 |
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote: > IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include procps in > the default cloud images. > > I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could be > offered which name the package we want (procps) > > Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;) What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is included: https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mooff <mooff@awful.cooking> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-13 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CX0AN-2KS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101691 |
I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean: $ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps bash: ps: command not found root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# > I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss this Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it. On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 11:21:29 -0700, Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote: >> IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include >> procps in >> the default cloud images. >> >> I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could >> be >> offered which name the package we want (procps) >> >> Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;) > > What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian > cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the > current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is > included: > > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-14 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CXagO-tt-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101694 |
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:59:25PM +0100, mooff wrote: > I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean: > > $ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps > bash: ps: command not found > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# > > > I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss > this > > Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it. In this case, it's not correct - the cloud team doesn't produce the debian docker images. There's support info on the docker hub page: https://hub.docker.com/_/debian Ross
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-14 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CXagP-tt-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101694 |
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:59:25PM +0100, mooff wrote: > I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean: > > $ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps > bash: ps: command not found > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# That is not a cloud image. > > I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss > this > > Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it. Since container images are not published by the cloud team, this would not be the right place to send this. I believe that the people publishing container images want issues raised on GitHub at https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts In my opinion, leaving procps out of the base container images is a reasonable decision. They're typically used as the basis for application-specific images, recipes for which typically pull in whatever packages are necessary or helpful for supporting the application's deployment. Populating the base images with packages that aren't strictly necessary is undesirable, and I'd argue that it would be roughly equivalent to Debian packages declaring a Depends relationship on a package that they don't strictly depend on. noah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-14 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CXaAa-A3-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101694 |
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM mooff wrote: > I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean: > $ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash ... > > I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to > discuss this I don't think the docker images are produced by the Debian cloud team (but are produced by Debian members IIRC) and I don't think they meet the requirements for being called official Debian images. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Politowski <mpol+debian@meep.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-14 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CXaAc-A3-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #101694 |
Dnia Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:59:25 +0100, mooff napisał(a): > I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean: > > $ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps > bash: ps: command not found > root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# Then, https://hub.docker.com/_/debian says: "Where to file issues: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/issues" And there we have: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/issues/20 -- "Missing procps package or feature?" > > I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss > this > > Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it. > > On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 11:21:29 -0700, Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote: > > > IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include > > > procps in > > > the default cloud images. > > > > > > I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could > > > be > > > offered which name the package we want (procps) > > > > > > Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;) > > > > What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian > > cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the > > current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is included: > > > > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json > > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json > > https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json > > -- Michał Politowski Talking has been known to lead to communication if practiced carelessly.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel
csiph-web