Re: Reviving the apptainer packaging effort
On 28/02/25 3:00 pm, Dennis van Dok wrote:
> On 27-02-2025 19:32, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>> No words of wisdom, as such, but a question:
>>
>> Since singularity is very close to apptainer, do
>> you think your energy could be better spent in maintaining singularity-container instead
>> and trying to release that to stable instead of packaging apptainer?
>>
>> OTOH, If we are going ahead with apptainer anyway, maybe it makes sense to -rm singularity?
>
> It's a fair question. AFAIK the two projects have gone separate ways in
> terms of how they are maintained and governed. I am not sure how close
> they still are, or if there is an active effort to incorporate patches
> in one direction or another, or both.
>
> If they are very similar indeed, then the packaging could also be very
> similar, so the additional packaging effort could be small. If they are
> very divergent, then there may actually be a case for having both.
>
> The reason I would focus on apptainer is that it is the software that is
> mostly used in the high throughput computing community I am in. But
> taking a look at both projects is probably a good idea.
OK. In that case, I will stop working on singularity-container for future releases, as
some work on apptainer has started already and it'd be good to have that.
Won't file RM request for singularity-container incase someone wants to pick it up in future.
I did not add myself to uploaders yet, and it seems like a good decision in hindsight.
New version would have been quite a bit of work and on my TODO. Not anymore. That's nice.
Reply to: