Use different docker container for plugin builder

[Roman Vyalov]

At the moment fuel plugin builder uses container with nailgun for building plugins.

We should use separate container only for building plugins or other packages.

[Artem Silenkov (asilenkov)]

We could create a meta package which provides "none" but requires all the necessary stuff like git, make, rpmbuild so on.
It could be called like fuelplugin-dev or something like that.

[Alexander Kislitsky (akislitsky)]

@Roman, please provide bp for this feature.

[Roman Vyalov (r0mikiam)]

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/container-for-plugin-builder

[Ihor Kalnytskyi (ikalnytskyi)]

Guys,

I'm completely against this terrible idea. Plugin builder is not about Fuel at all. So why we need to ship any containers?! Plugins could be built on any machine that met some requirements criteria (by tools).

Moreover, it would be enough to fetch upstream centos container. So why then?

Thanks,
Igor

[Roman Vyalov (r0mikiam)]

Igor,
at the moment we building plugins in docker container with nailgun.
Related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1473917
Documentation: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Using_Fuel_Plugin_Builder_tool

[Ihor Kalnytskyi (ikalnytskyi)]

Roman,

It's up to our system tests. It's not about Fuel. I mean Fuel users don't care about it, they consume already built plugins. Therefore, I think we should fix it tests than in Fuel.

So why I see python team assigned on it?! It's not about fuel plugin builder at all.

[Dmitry Pyzhov (dpyzhov)]

I don't see real reason why we need this feature.

[deactivateduser (deactivateduser-deactivatedaccount)]

There's a blueprint for the feature https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/container-for-plugin-builder