Re: official Emacs Docker image

[John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>]

>>>>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I see how it makes sense to use this on Windows. But it seems absurd to use
> this on GNU/Linux. Why does anyone do that?

On GNU/Linux systems, it runs the image in a low-cost container, providing
better process separation than chroot, while also allowing you to use
alternative kernel versions, or a different distro (for example, running
something built for CentOS on a Debian box).

> How big would such a docker image be? I know that disks are getting bigger,
> but how many such applications could fit on a typical laptop?

Probably <200M, if constructed well, and with all sources and documentation
made available within the image.

> However, I don't see any ethical issue about making and distributing Docker
> images of Emacs as long as we get the details right: for instance, use an
> endorsed free GNU/Linux distro.
>
> Do you see any specific issues we need to consider?

No, I think we can provide a 100% free image, that others could run on any
system supporting Docker-engine (Windows, FreeBSD, Mac, GNU/Linux). This will
allow them to experience identical behavior on all those systems. It would
also be able to edit host files, if the user passes -v to map one or more host
directories into the container.

As to *why* anyone would want to do this: The biggest advantage to Docker is
not packaging a single application, since Emacs can already run on all these
systems. It's having the ability to test a perfectly self-contained Emacs,
that runs within a virgin environment every time (any changes made to the
container are lost as soon as the container is stopped). One could then have
multiple Emacsen available, and be able to run tests on each version, without
disturbing their host machine's installation.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2