Re: official Emacs Docker image

[John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1177 bytes --]

>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> 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.

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

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

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

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 629 bytes --]