-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 193
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add podman compatibility #193
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Florent Ulvé <[email protected]>
11c6e3c
to
9f37180
Compare
Is it possible to review/merge this PR ? I'd love to use Exegol with podman instead of docker. All the best, |
Have you been able to test it? Didn't have the bandwidth just yet |
Thank you for the PR, I will check this as soon as possible. |
Sorry for the delay, back from engagement (using Exegol <3). |
Hi, sorry for the delay. I think the trick here is to have the docker/podman compatibility layer installed.
It's not a first class support though but as a podman user I think it's ok. |
I just tried your branch
My setup is a brand new Fedora 39 VM with podman-docker installed. Nothing too fancy IMHO. |
Try to run it twice. I get the same error as yours on the first try, but it successfully starts the container anyway. On the second try, everything works as expected. |
To sum it up, in order to have a working Exegol with podman on an up-to-date Fedora 39:
First attempt at starting a container will return an error but starts the container anyway. Second attempt will give the expected result. From my first tests, GUI applications are working fine (tested with Firefox). I will try to make it work without root rights. |
Thanks for the PR, but podman support doesn't seem mature and stable enough to be added to the official Exegol as it is. So I'm going to draft the PR for the time being. When I have time to fully add podman support, I'll be able to start from this PR, unless things change before then. Thanks again for your help and interest in Exegol! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@florentulve by creating IMAGE_FULL_NAME
will only add not needed redundant code. docker
can easily take explicitly the registry name, so, what I would suggest is to remove IMAGE_FULL_NAME
and just use IMAGE_NAME
by adding docker.io/
. It will work for both docker and podman without adding an additional variable and additional if conditions.
My assumption was not efficient.
Btw I created a new PR for this involving Python Podman library: #234
fix #182
first attempt to add podman support: starting a container work. I have not tested all use cases