Bug 1813845

Summary:	[RFE] HTTP/REST API for podman
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Ranjith Rajaram <rrajaram>
Component:	podman	Assignee:	Tom Sweeney <tsweeney>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Martin Jenner <mjenner>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	8.3	CC:	bbaude, chhudson, ddarrah, dornelas, dwalsh, jligon, jnovy, lsm5, mheon, pdwyer, smccarty, tsweeney, umohnani, weshen, ypu
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	8.3
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	podman 2.0.0-rc5 or newer	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-11-04 03:05:13 UTC	Type:	Feature Request
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1186913, 1804543, 1956608
Deadline:	2020-06-15

Description Ranjith Rajaram 2020-03-16 09:52:01 UTC

1. Proposed title of this feature request

A simpler API implementation based on HTTP/REST for podman

2. What is the nature and description of the request?

podman in RHEL7 does not have a way to be monitored or managed via API's like docker.

Proposal included in the below url fits well for the need
https://podman.io/blogs/2020/01/17/podman-new-api.html

3. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here)

Customer currently uses docker and manages containers via API's. Lack of API support for podman is considered as a limitation in the adoption of podman

4. How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here)

A simpler API implementation based on HTTP/REST. It should be mostly compatible or similar to the functionality that docker provides

5. For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented.

API Endpoints will be accessed to gather information about running containers and images etc. Also the same end point would be used to manage containers.

6. Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla?
https://podman.io/blogs/2020/01/17/podman-new-api.html

7. Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)?

RHEL7

8. List any affected packages or components.

podman

9. Would the customer be able to assist in testing this functionality if implemented?

Yes

Comment 7 Derrick Ornelas 2020-03-19 14:21:52 UTC

As Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 is now in its Maintenance Support 1 phase[1] no new software functionality is planned.  We are moving this request to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 where it may be considered for inclusion in a future minor release.  

[1]
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Maintenance_Support_1_Phase

Comment 9 Daniel Walsh 2020-03-20 15:08:44 UTC

The current goal for the API is podman 2.0.0 which will ship on RHEL8.3.  Although we will release a version in RHEL8.2.1

I don't see us releasing in RHEL7 at all at this point.  But you can take your argument up with Product Management.

Note RHEL7 is not going to be supported forever, and Docker will quickly fall out of favour for RHEL7 customers.

Comment 10 Tom Sweeney 2020-03-20 20:46:03 UTC

canceling needinfo based on Dan's response.

Comment 13 Tom Sweeney 2020-03-24 17:04:59 UTC

Based on discussions, closing as won't fix, at least at this time.

Comment 14 Daniel Walsh 2020-06-03 14:02:59 UTC

podman 2.0 will have support for this.

Comment 26 errata-xmlrpc 2020-11-04 03:05:13 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (Moderate: container-tools:rhel8 security, bug fix, and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:4694