Re: Very basic question, regarding redirects

From: Scott Mebberson <scott_at_scottmebberson.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:49:55 +0930

Regarding immutability, it is a fair point. However, it is common within
the Docker world to modify environment variables, through Dockerfiles, the
docker run command, and within processes running inside the container too.
The first two of course are picked up through the s6-overlay setup, but the
later isn't.

Perhaps if we're concerned about mutability of the original environment, we
need another directory to store modified environment variables? But that
sounds messy.

I guess the only real concern is if you screw up the environment enough
that the s6-overlay scripts don't run. But, that's a problem with all Linux
environments within containers?

I personally don't see too much of an issue with it, but you guys are much,
much, much better placed to make judgement on this matter than I :)

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Laurent Bercot <ska-skaware_at_skarnet.org>
wrote:

> On 11/05/2015 15:54, Gorka Lertxundi wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's safe. Every time "with-contenv" is invoked, current env is
>> dropped and the new one loaded with the current env file/vars
>>
>
> I know that - I wrote it - but my point was about immutability
> guarantee. That envdir contains the environment as it is defined
> at container run time; maybe users rely on that and want to run
> CMDs with that environment, unmodified by the container itself.
> If some script inside the container can modify the envdir, then
> subsequent invocations of with-contenv will not provide the same
> environment that was defined at container run time. I think it's
> worthy of attention.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Received on Tue May 12 2015 - 02:19:55 UTC