From: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
To: meta-virtualization@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: royzah@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] crun: provide virtual-runc and honour CRUN_AS_RUNC
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 11:24:48 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6aaed370.03c0d5ef.138d32.2423@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260919173540.1602199-1-royzah@gmail.com>
Hi Royyan,
Thanks for the patch, but the premise it's built on is the one thing
I need to push back on.
`virtual/runc` (and its RPROVIDES sibling `virtual-runc`) is a holdover
from when meta-virtualization carried two runc implementations in-tree,
opencontainers/runc and docker's own. Commit 7d6284a0 (2017)
introduced the abstraction so a build could set PREFERRED_PROVIDER to
pick which variant was the C-level runc binary. Once the two variants
were consolidated (cb2d4868 removed the "opencontainers" flavor,
ea15fd06 dropped runc-docker), the mechanism lost its purpose. It's on
a path to removal, not extension, and I'd rather not add new consumers.
For picking crun vs runc as the OCI runtime of a container engine, the
layer's mechanism today is `VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_container_runtime` (plus
the sibling VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_container_* variables) set in the profile
fragments under `conf/distro/include/`. `meta-virt-container-containerd.inc`
already ships with `VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_container_runtime ??= "crun"` -- that
is the intended way to make crun the default runtime, and no bbappend
or RPROVIDES is involved. The bbappend churn you're seeing in
downstreams is a symptom of that pattern not being documented well
enough, not of a missing RPROVIDES on crun.
That said, the second half of your patch is genuinely finding a bug:
`CRUN_AS_RUNC = "false"` reads as true today, because "false" is a
non-empty string in both the shell `-n` test and the python
`if d.getVar(...)` expansions. That fix is worth landing on its own.
Would you resubmit as a smaller patch that keeps just the
`bb.utils.to_boolean()` normalization for `CRUN_AS_RUNC`, without the
`RPROVIDES virtual-runc` addition? I'd also skip the comment
rewordings on the RCONFLICTS line -- the existing comment reads fine
and reworking it on a bugfix makes the change harder to review. I can
take that version as-is.
Cheers,
Bruce
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-19 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-19 17:35 [meta-virtualization][PATCH] crun: provide virtual-runc and honour CRUN_AS_RUNC Royyan Zahir
2026-09-19 18:24 ` Bruce Ashfield [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6aaed370.03c0d5ef.138d32.2423@mx.google.com \
--to=bruce.ashfield@gmail.com \
--cc=meta-virtualization@lists.yoctoproject.org \
--cc=royzah@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox