Skip to content

Conversation

@bziemons
Copy link
Member

Closes: #458

@bziemons
Copy link
Member Author

Please mind this needs manual testing. I might have missed something

@Geogouz Geogouz self-requested a review January 30, 2026 09:31
@rcarpa
Copy link
Contributor

rcarpa commented Jan 30, 2026

I like, a lot, the idea of having a venv for rucio rather than using the global python libraries, but I wonder if mixing rucio binaries and the venv ones is a good idea. I would personally put the venv in a different location

@Geogouz
Copy link
Contributor

Geogouz commented Jan 30, 2026

Right now, the baked venv at /opt/rucio is basically hidden by the bind mounts we use in the docker-compose. So we should adjust this on rucio/rucio side too. But we could maybe also use a venv like /opt/rucio-venv, set the PATH to that venv and PYTHONPATH=/opt/rucio/lib for the module resolution.

Also, another idea might be to break this into separate PR per container. It feels like reviewing all of them at once, comes with the disadvantage of having a huge scope. Which means that this will take quite a long time to be merged. I think we should at least start with the dev container and see how this goes. That one is not very dangerous to merge and play with. Dunno.

@rcarpa
Copy link
Contributor

rcarpa commented Jan 30, 2026

I like the idea of trying it on the dev container first. Then do the others.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider using Python venvs in containers to avoid conflicts with system-installed packages

3 participants