| To: | Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] PATCH RFC use environment to signify container name for rc scripts |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:30:20 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1599163001.7724934.1426544792725.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <55067A95.4080705@xxxxxxxxxx> <1599163001.7724934.1426544792725.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | dOBSNHDsX/i0SXqn2SoFqou8z9zyP/eE6imT |
| Thread-topic: | PATCH RFC use environment to signify container name for rc scripts |
----- Original Message ----- > > [...] > > Something like $PCP_CONTAINER_NAME might prove very useful in contexts > > other than rc scripts too. Thoughts? > > Yep - I'd already switched from rc.pause to rc.container, but I agree > passing more detailed information would be good. Your patch actually > passes the container tag rather than the container name (which is not > available at build time)... maybe that should be $PCP_CONTAINER_TAG? > On closer inspection, PCP_CONTAINER_IMAGE matches better still with what is actually being passed in there (while still avoiding the ambiguity of NAME) ... I'll go with that for now, lemme know if you prefer something else though. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | QA resource leaks, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PATCH RFC use environment to signify container name for rc scripts, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | QA resource leaks, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |