🌱 feat: add support for Podman as a container runtime#464
Conversation
0e352f5 to
23c0d1d
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #464 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 38.23% 38.23%
=======================================
Files 15 15
Lines 1224 1224
=======================================
Hits 468 468
Misses 706 706
Partials 50 50 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
m1kola
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. I personally just have a symlink from docker to podman in path, but we already have CONTAINER_RUNTIME in Makefile in operator-controller and I'm up for consistency.
Let's resolve the blocker #462 and go ahead with this one.
|
If you are looking for a docker-based system on MacOS, I've been using colima successfully for quite awhile. It does not have the same license problems as the official Docker Desktop application and was more stable for me when I was trying to decide between podman desktop and colima. I think it is fine to align this repo with operator-controller, but just be forewarned: the stance in operator-controller is that we do not and likely will not have CI setup for multiple container runtimes. Right now, we use docker officially, and podman is best-effort. |
Since docker requires a license in some scenarios, we might have contributors who prefer to use Podman. This commit introduces the changes necessary to support both.
23c0d1d to
b1c5480
Compare
m1kola
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for updating it. Looks good to me.
Since docker requires a license in some scenarios, we might have contributors who prefer to use Podman. This commit introduces the changes necessary to support both.