Skip to content
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

support podman #9

Open
pythops opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

support podman #9

pythops opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@pythops
Copy link

pythops commented Jun 27, 2024

Would be great to add support for podman as well

@robertpsoane robertpsoane added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 28, 2024
@robertpsoane
Copy link
Owner

Definitely makes sense to add, but I'm not sure podman is daemonised in the same way docker is?

I know at the cli api level they're roughly API compatible, but I'm not sure if Bollard is inherently podman compatible

I'll definitely look into it once I've got a few more features on the docker side

@pythops
Copy link
Author

pythops commented Jul 5, 2024

podman is indeed a daemonless which makes sense if you think about it, why do you need a daemon to run containers ?
and it has an API that is accessible via unix socket
https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/_static/api.html

@blurayne
Copy link

blurayne commented Jul 17, 2024

+1

Usually a podman installation comes with a socket service (either rootless or root) that was designed to replace dockerd socket. For 99% of all containers / docker-compose stuff you don't have any problems with it. I even added a docker context for it (running docker root/docker rootless/podman on my system). Preference goes to Podman but some devs still rely on docker root :(

https://docs.podman.io/en/v4.1.1/markdown/podman-system-service.1.html

Now you just need to add a pods view. And secrets.

@robertpsoane
Copy link
Owner

I will have a re-read of the docs
My mis-understanding from a brief read about the podman socket service was that there were security implications of it
Thanks for the corrections!

@DarkAngelStrike
Copy link

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants