[ Configuration ] Capitalize MUST through document #403
Conversation
"must" --> "MUST" for RFC 2119 compliance Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin <[email protected]>
| * **`env`** (array of strings, optional) contains a list of variables that will be set in the process's environment prior to execution. Elements in the array are specified as Strings in the form "KEY=value". The left hand side must consist solely of letters, digits, and underscores `_` as outlined in [IEEE Std 1003.1-2001](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap08.html). | ||
| * **`args`** (string, required) executable to launch and any flags as an array. The executable is the first element and must be available at the given path inside of the rootfs. If the executable path is not an absolute path then the search $PATH is interpreted to find the executable. | ||
| * **`env`** (array of strings, optional) contains a list of variables that will be set in the process's environment prior to execution. Elements in the array are specified as Strings in the form "KEY=value". The left hand side MUST consist solely of letters, digits, and underscores `_` as outlined in [IEEE Std 1003.1-2001](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap08.html). | ||
| * **`args`** (string, required) executable to launch and any flags as an array. The executable is the first element and MUST be available at the given path inside of the rootfs. If the executable path is not an absolute path then the search $PATH is interpreted to find the executable. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is awkward. The “… first element…” sentence is a bundle requirement, but I really don't care if we require that or not. Bundles that don't have an executable at that path (in the container's mount namespace after all the mounts, etc., etc. are setup?) will fail. But checking for that ahead of time, without actually launching the container, seems difficult and/or unstable. I'd rather reword this to cite execv(3) informatively, but allow bundle validators to ignore it.
The “… $PATH…” sentence is a runtime requirement, and probably needs a “MUST” and a link to something more explicit (like execv(3)). Do we need to distinguish between bundle and runtime requirements in this file (see also #404)?
And if both of those points are too involved for this PR and I should spin them out into follow-up issues/PRs, that's fine with me.
|
LGTM please rebase |
"must" --> "MUST" for RFC 2119 compliance This replaces PR opencontainers#403 which required a rebase Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin <[email protected]>
|
Replaced by #438 |
"must" --> "MUST" for RFC 2119 compliance This replaces PR opencontainers#403 which required a rebase Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin <[email protected]>
3 participants
"must" --> "MUST" for RFC 2119 compliance
Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin [email protected]