1. ok, 2. ok

3. discussed briefly with , we will rename to "docker", "rpm", "deb". We think it make sense from the artifact creation point of view to use "-t deb" or "-t docker".

I'll rework accordingly and move forward the PR.

1. I would not wait for the "official" repository for this, we can always move it later. This PR looks fine to me. Also note we are discussing to provide these most common ones out of the box (see latest comments in ).
2. That sounds fine, let's keep it simple for now (no restart support).
3. Naming is always the hard part. docker makes sense. "setup" I am not so sure about, the others are call "deb-install", "rpm-install", etc? What about simply calling this one "docker" and the others "rpm" and "deb"?

A couple of questions, mostly for :

1. Should we simply merge the module and artifact creation script in the file locations from the PR? Alternatively, we need to wait for the resolution to (the module repository part).

2. The module does not handle restart policy, IOW the containers are not guaranteed to start again when you restart the system.

   • One can use the --restart flag, but this is somewhat configuration dependent, since one can also use systemd. So it's a small can of worms

   • Should we then handle this in the module, or treat it as a demo for now, and just handle the simple runtime case?

3. I suggested renaming the current container-setup name to docker-setup, but let us know if you have other preferences for names as well

The module itself is written and locally tested. The code still needs a formal PR once we create the new repo for the UMs.

Putting this issue on hold until we advance in planning the epic

Ok, removing that criterion, and updating the build procedure.