Re: Releasing guix binary in Docker format too?

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi,

(adding Jelle because of 'skopeo' :-))

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 11:12, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> > Back to this.  Since it would be nice to try to release (somewhere?)
> > an experimental guix Docker image.
>
> Among the issues to be addressed is whether we can push to DockerHub
> with free software only (there was a discussion recently on IRC about a
> tool to do that, but I don’t remember the details.)

The tool is 'skopeo' and packaged in Guix.

However, push to DockerHub requires an account (by Guix project) which
requires... probably non-free JS, at least once.  Then pulling does
not require an account so it is compliant with GNU standards---at as I
understand them.  Therefore, the question is: does the GNU Guix
project agree to use non-free tools to spread freedom?  (Note, GNU
Emacs should do something like that with Windows and MacOS
<https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/download.html#nonfree>; I mean, it
is impossible to port Emacs and maintain it on Windows or MacOS
without owning at least one machine running Windows/MacOS.)

On the other hand, Guix could host its own registry
<https://docs.docker.com/registry/>.  Or maybe, an "institution" from
Guix HPC could help.

Last, 'skopeo' seems able to fetch "tarball images".  Therefore, on
the Guix side, it is nothing more than another item in the store.
However, it means that the user must have 'skopeo' to fetch the image.
It really decreases the audience.  Well, maybe it is the easiest first
experimental move:

 - generate by the CI the Docker image as tarball
 - add one experimental box on <http://guix.gnu.org/en/download/>
 - write the 'skopeo' command line

WDYT?


All the best,
simon