Re: Error when trying to run "docker-compose up"

[Ian Eure]

Samuel Schmidt <samuel@schmidt-contact.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I am facing the same problem, but I have to use docker-compose. 
> I guess there are no plans to fix this atm? :/ Or did you find 
> any help regarding this problem?
>
> Am 17.01.2024 um 21:53, Rodrigo Morales <me@rodrigomorales.site> 
> schrieb:Rodrigo Morales <me@rodrigomorales.site> writes:
>
> > Does anyone know what could be the problem?
>
> I found this thread [1] on help-guix from 2019 where a user 
> reports
> having errores with docker-compose. A user replies:
>
> #+BEGIN_QUOTE
> The root of this problem is that our docker-compose package is 
> very
> old: it was added in January 2016(!), and has never been updated
> since. I guess that proves how unneccessary Docker is once 
> you've
> discovered Guix… ducks
> #+END_QUOTE
>
> Furthermore, I noticed that the version of docker-compose is 
> 1.29.2 and
> upstream [2] is at 2.12.0, so even if I fix this problem. I'll 
> be using
> an old version of docker-compose. For my use case, it would be 
> more
> useful to use the latest version of docker-compose, so if I 
> wanted to
> use docker-compose under Guix, I would need for me to write a 
> Guix
> package for that version.

Note also that this is a Docker Compose v1->v2 upgrade.  The newer 
version is completely different from v1, it’s a plugin that 
integrates with the Docker CLI, so you run `docker compose' rather 
than `docker-compose'.  We likely need a completely new package 
for it.


> I have one question: The user above states that Docker is 
> unnecessary
> once you have discovered Guix. I have been using Guix for around 
> 6
> months, but I don't see how I could use Guix for running a web 
> server on
> a container that uses node.js and postgresql. The reason why I 
> initially
> wanted to use docker is because I find it more convenient to run 
> a web
> server with node.js and postgresql. Any information on this 
> topic is
> appreciated.

I continue to find both Guix and Docker useful.  While they have 
some overlapping goals, I don’t believe either can replace the 
other.

The closest thing to Docker Compose I’m aware of that you can do 
with pure Guix is create an operating-system with the services you 
want to run, then use `guix system image -t docker 
my-machine-definition.scm' to bundle it as a Docker image.  This 
will bring up a container with the base Guix and those services 
running inside.

This setup lacks some niceties which Compose has:

Everything seems to run in the same namespace[1], so a compromise 
of one service is more likely to compromise the whole system. 
Compose is more resistant to this, since each service runs in its 
own namespace (that is, container).  I don’t know of a Guix 
equivalent for the Compose style of multi-container setup.

I haven’t compared, but I strongly suspect the image sizes are 
larger than an equivalent plain Docker image, due to having the 
base Guix inside them, whereas many Docker images use (or have the 
option of) an Alpine base.

It can only run things with a Guix package and Shepherd service to 
manage it.

Updates are likely slower than vendor-provided Docker images.

It’s also a more involved setup -- you have to write the config, 
and build the image, and load it, and run it.  In fact, I have yet 
to actually make a system image that works *at all*.  Compose is 
dead simple in comparison.

 — Ian

[1]: At least, if Shepherd can run services in their own 
namespaces, like Docker can, the manual is silent on the topic.