-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
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
Remove default distrobox config - NOT A BUG - design choice #2156
Comments
I agree that we should fix this. Can you go into more details on what you're building? Sounds interesting! Edit: oh your link has all the info, I'll go read! |
@castrojo , that link is an example project where I am using a .devcontainer for development. I did not push the .devcontainer dir. But have one locally that starts like this: Expand to see how I reference local image in `devcontainer.json`
But as I documented else where (a topic you are pretty familiar), using distrobox and dev containers together is a little challenging. So this is my next experiment.
Here is roughly what I have so far. I have a script and a set of Containerfile files I use to create the hierarchy.
Expand to see the script I use to create the setup.
The idea is that I can create distrobox OR dev containers from any of the fedora41-*-dx images. All the artifacts are pretty specific to my local setup and so I have them in a local (to my lan) git repo right now. But I hope that gives an idea of the nature of my experiment. Layers of
|
FYI - I do plan to post the details on universal-blue.dicourse.group when I am further along... |
@castrojo I just pushed up the .devcontainer dir in case you would like to see what a usage of this work is about: pi-day-2025-with-py And, I am happy to announce that I have captured my initial results of this experiment at: klmcwhirter/oci-shared-images and have posted at Bluefin - rely on OCI layer sharing for distrobox and devcontainer. Thanks to @tulilirockz for volunteering to take on the change for this request. |
Our distrobox config seems to not really be affecting any of this? The configuration file you sent is invalid, you want to use podman instead of docker there. I believe the only really "actionable" thing here would be to use a simpler config by not specifying the default container. |
@tulilirockz I am going to have to disagree with you here. My testing shows the config is the root cause of the problem. But, yes, as a compromise not setting the default image would be a good start. But many of the other options override distrobox defaults and should probably be reviewed. Current:
Maybe?
I recommend you analyze the other options as well while you are at it. Or just delete the distrbox.conf file altogether in favor of distrobox defaults. I can understand why you would want to keep I override it only when I need to work with docker (e.g., for devcontainer compatibility - podman doesn't work in that context). And I do so via the env var provided for that purpose:
But, as mentioned above, until a strategy around this can be decided upon I will continue to manage my local Please note that I raised this issue because @castrojo made it quite clear over the many videos he has published (thank you again for those) that he put that config together to enable his own personal preferences. And it occurred to me that as this project matures as a part of Universal Blue that this should be rethought. I am sure - especially, since your target audience is 'Chromebook' users, that things like this can become a cause for issues raised by less skilled, or skilled users who are new to Linux. Please take your time to get this right. There is no hurry. |
I agree that we should just ship a stock config, let's do it at F42 so the change is documented in the release notes, that way we don't remove this midcycle. |
Please note that the distrobox install script does not install a conf file by default. One should be purposefully designed for Universal Blue's purposes. See Configure Distrobox for a list of options available.
|
Describe the bug
As mentioned elsewhere, the default config for distrobox is setup to use ubuntu-toolbox. This seems to be a carry over from the early days of this project.
But it is getting in the way of proper state detection / error reporting.
The default config should be empty.
When setting up distrobox the way I use it (with fedora-toolbox) ...
This results in an undesirable outcome. Does not fail fast.
What did you expect to happen?
I would prefer to get an error.
If I copy
/etc/distrobox/distrobox.conf
to~/.config/distrobox/distrobox.conf
and change it to look like the following then I get an error instead of an incorrect result. This is the desired behavior.Result:
Shouldn't the person(s) desiring ubuntu-toolbox be required to customize their local
~/.config/distrobox/distrobox.conf
instead of all the rest of us now?Output of
bootc status
Output of
groups
Extra information or context
I am in the process of creating a sophisticated set of OCI images whose purpose are to be used for both distrobox and dev containers.
I will need to add to this setup over time as I encounter projects that use different sets of technologies. E.g., nodejs, zig (for wasm) and python in a multi-repo for my pi-day-2025-with-py project.
I have to create a series of OCI images to make sure pre-requisites are installed; and can build on each other. The result is that the OCI image layers are shared between whatever distroboxen and dev containers I need.
The top of the image hierarchy is
ghcr.io/ublue-os/fedora-toolbox:latest
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: