Re: official Emacs Docker image

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:45:57 -0700 John Wiegley <address@hidden> wrote: 

>>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:
TZ> Docker Inc., who runs the Docker Hub. They essentially own the top
TZ> namespace, so pulling "ubuntu" gets the official Ubuntu image, while
TZ> "rms/ubuntu" is under the "rms" (usually a user name) namespace.

JW> Wouldn't the "official" Docker image for Emacs be some "official" base OS,
JW> such as debian:wheezy, and then the current Emacs release tarball built with
JW> default options upon that base?

It's a package from the user's viewpoint. Package maintenance is more
involved than just installing a tarball. Docker Inc. provides security
scans, automated builds, testing, and some user support for official
images.

JW> I say this because there are already "official" versions of Ubuntu and 
Emacs,
JW> released on their respective websites, and Docker is just combining them 
into
JW> another delivery form. Since they don't add or change anything about the 
code
JW> being deployed, the officialness of Emacs running in a container should be
JW> transitively determined by where its sources came from.

JW> In all of this the FSF needn't be involved, except to be sure that whoever 
is
JW> packaging these Emacs containers isn't adding or changing anything from what
JW> is released on ftp.gnu.org.

When you get the official "nginx" Docker image, you are usually not
aware (unless you dig) that it has other GNU or generally free/non-free
software. The software you run is hidden. Often there are many people
packaging the same software in different ways for different purposes.
That's why I suggested official Docker images with FSF/GNU branding
might be good for Docker users, if only to present a consistently free
package.

Ted