quadlet install: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file #27384

flouthoc · 2025-10-27T14:09:35Z

Add ability to quadlet install to install multiple quadlets from a single file by separating
them with --- delimiters, similar to how multiple quadlets can be
installed from a directory. Each section requires # FileName=<name> comment for custom naming.

Example usage:

  # FileName=web-server
  [Container]
  Image=nginx:latest
  PublishPort=8080:80
  
  ---
  
  # FileName=app-storage
  [Volume]
  Label=app=webapp

$ podman quadlet install webapp.quadlets
/home/user/.config/containers/systemd/web-server.container
/home/user/.config/containers/systemd/app-storage.volume

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

quadlet install: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file

openshift-ci · 2025-10-27T14:09:44Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: flouthoc
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign mheon for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

packit-as-a-service · 2025-10-27T14:11:06Z

[NON-BLOCKING] Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check. Everyone else, feel free to ignore.

ygalblum · 2025-10-27T15:30:25Z

The title of the PR and the release notes comment are misleading. This PR does not add this capability to Quadlet, it adds it to quadlet install. It's important to make this distinction so that users that do not use quadlet install and instead manually manage their files, won't expect this capability

flouthoc · 2025-10-27T15:56:20Z

The title of the PR and the release notes comment are misleading. This PR does not add this capability to Quadlet, it adds it to quadlet install. It's important to make this distinction so that users that do not use quadlet install and instead manually manage their files, won't expect this capability

I agree this is only applicable for quadlet install, thanks @ygalblum for pointing this out.

Luap99 · 2025-10-27T16:16:39Z

Please add the issue link with Fixes :###

The title of the PR and the release notes comment are misleading. This PR does not add this capability to Quadlet, it adds it to quadlet install. It's important to make this distinction so that users that do not use quadlet install and instead manually manage their files, won't expect this capability

Just to be clear I am still against doing this overall but I guess I was outvoted on that so that doesn't matter.
IMO that is the worst possible outcome of this. Not doing this in quadlet proper will make everything just so much more confusing for end users. It breaks the "declarative" nature of just copying file into the right place as you now force any users who has such a "multi" file to have to run that though podman quadlet install which just seems unnecessary.

TomSweeneyRedHat · 2025-10-27T21:22:47Z

pkg/domain/infra/abi/quadlet.go

+// parseMultiQuadletFile parses a file that may contain multiple quadlets separated by "---"
+// Returns a slice of quadletSection structs, each representing a separate quadlet
+func parseMultiQuadletFile(filePath string) ([]quadletSection, error) {
+	content, err := os.ReadFile(filePath)


I think you have already read the file in isMultiQuadletFile(toInstall) prior. Would it make sense to load the file into an array or some other data structure in isMultiQuadletFile() to avoid another read here?

This function is removed.

ygalblum · 2025-10-28T13:23:01Z

@Luap99 I completely agree with you. But, I kinda disengaged from the podman quadlet work. So, as you, I assume this was decided somewhere and just want to make sure we keep the distinction.

Luap99 · 2025-10-28T18:11:21Z

@ygalblum there was an internal design doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVjmxVA6k_83iVztQ4j4ISGW7JMVb7yCBfO6vYk9SWs/edit?usp=sharing

If that wasn't shared to you then this is already a big issue as you as main quadlet maintainer should be able to look at these things and give your input. As I noted there design docs shouldn't be internal at all and be public in this repo so all maintainers and community people can actually give feedback https://github.com/containers/podman/tree/main/contrib/design-docs which was also not done here.

So, as you, I assume this was decided somewhere and just want to make sure we keep the distinction.

Well the way I see it decided "somewhere" doesn't count in general, we decide upstream on github what gets merged which includes all maintainers including you of course. So if you think this is a bad idea you can still speak up. I already objected that feature internally and on the issue (#26447) but it seemed like some other maintainers on the team were in favour and others abstained so I didn't push any further against this.

eriksjolund · 2025-10-29T06:49:14Z

@ygalblum there was an internal design doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVjmxVA6k_83iVztQ4j4ISGW7JMVb7yCBfO6vYk9SWs/edit?usp=sharing

I clicked the link and landed on a web page saying:

You need access
Request access, or switch to an account with access. Learn more

(*) Viewer

( ) Commenter

( ) Editor

There is also a text input field

Message (optional)

Is the document only for internal use?

There is button to click for Request access. I could click the button but I wanted to ask before I do that.

Honny1

My only thought is that we could improve performance by reading the input file only once instead of multiple times.

Luap99 · 2025-10-29T11:24:46Z

Is the document only for internal use?

There is no reason why this should be private IMO. I don't own the doc so I cannot share it. As I said for feedback and public knowledge this should have been posted here on github into the design-doc directory instead of being a private doc.

There have been a ton of design docs internally over the years. I am trying to push all to do these discussions in public here on github for transparency and to allow for feedback outside our team early on in the design phase.

ygalblum · 2025-10-29T15:31:52Z

I don't have access to this doc either. I remember the discussion we had on Quadlet's support for single file and I agree that Quadlet should not support it.

Generally speaking about podman quadlet, my personal opinion is that I don't see its benefit in Linux systems where users can simply copy the files and use systemctl to manage the services. I can see it in MacOS or Windows where the details of where podman actually runs are hidden from the user and copying the files manually is not obvious.

To me, the podman quadlet command is more of a copy tool than actually Quadlet and that's how I try to differentiate between them. I don't mind having a tool that knows to read a single file and break it into many. But, it should have a distinct extension (one not supported by Quadlet), schema and proper documentation.

eriksjolund · 2025-10-30T07:49:31Z

There is no reason why this should be private IMO. I don't own the doc so I cannot share it. As I said for feedback and public knowledge this should have been posted here on github into the design-doc directory instead of being a private doc.

There have been a ton of design docs internally over the years. I am trying to push all to do these discussions in public here on github for transparency and to allow for feedback outside our team early on in the design phase.

That is a good idea.

flouthoc · 2025-10-30T15:11:39Z

I don't have access to this doc either. I remember the discussion we had on Quadlet's support for single file and I agree that Quadlet should not support it.

Generally speaking about podman quadlet, my personal opinion is that I don't see its benefit in Linux systems where users can simply copy the files and use systemctl to manage the services. I can see it in MacOS or Windows where the details of where podman actually runs are hidden from the user and copying the files manually is not obvious.

To me, the podman quadlet command is more of a copy tool than actually Quadlet and that's how I try to differentiate between them. I don't mind having a tool that knows to read a single file and break it into many. But, it should have a distinct extension (one not supported by Quadlet), schema and proper documentation.

@ygalblum You should have access to design doc now.

But, it should have a distinct extension (one not supported by Quadlet), schema and proper documentation

I agree, I think we can limit this to one particular extension maybe like .quadlets. If everyone agrees I can make this change. WDYT ?

flouthoc · 2025-11-07T18:17:31Z

@ygalblum @Luap99 This is ready for review.

Honny1 · 2025-11-10T12:39:25Z

pkg/domain/infra/abi/quadlet.go

+			isQuadletsFile := ext == ".quadlets"
+
+			// Only check for multi-quadlet content if it's a .quadlets file
+			var isMulti bool
+			if isQuadletsFile {
+				// For .quadlets files, always treat as multi-quadlet (even single quadlets)
+				isMulti = true
+			}


I think isMulti always has the same value as isQuadletsFile.

Enable installing multiple quadlets from one file using '---' delimiters. Each section requires '# FileName=<name>' comment for custom naming. Single quadlet files remain unchanged for backward compatibility. Assited by: claude-4-sonnet Signed-off-by: flouthoc <[email protected]>

Quadlets installed from `.quadlet` file now belongs to a single application, anyone file removed from this application removes all the other files as well. Assited by: claude-4-sonnet Signed-off-by: flouthoc <[email protected]>

flouthoc · 2025-11-10T16:27:09Z

@Honny1 PTAL

Honny1

LGTM

openshift-ci bot added the release-note label Oct 27, 2025

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch from 6a18d3d to 8ea91d2 Compare October 27, 2025 14:10

flouthoc marked this pull request as draft October 27, 2025 14:11

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 27, 2025

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch 2 times, most recently from 6688c20 to 1ea3992 Compare October 27, 2025 15:29

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch from 1ea3992 to f90c8a5 Compare October 27, 2025 15:54

flouthoc changed the title ~~quadlet: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file~~ quadlet install: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file Oct 27, 2025

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch 4 times, most recently from 3ceac95 to 3efc462 Compare October 27, 2025 18:25

TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Oct 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

Honny1 reviewed Oct 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch from 3efc462 to 5e8c0b9 Compare November 3, 2025 20:28

flouthoc marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2025 20:28

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 3, 2025

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch from 3e5da4c to 5c6f512 Compare November 4, 2025 20:15

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch 4 times, most recently from e394f15 to 03e35a0 Compare November 6, 2025 16:56

flouthoc requested review from Honny1, Luap99 and TomSweeneyRedHat November 7, 2025 18:17

Honny1 reviewed Nov 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

flouthoc added 2 commits November 10, 2025 08:25

flouthoc force-pushed the multi-file-quadlet branch from 03e35a0 to a1501c4 Compare November 10, 2025 16:26

flouthoc requested a review from Honny1 November 10, 2025 16:27

Honny1 reviewed Nov 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

quadlet install: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file #27384

Are you sure you want to change the base?

quadlet install: add support for multiple quadlets in a single file #27384

Conversation

flouthoc commented Oct 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

packit-as-a-service bot commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

ygalblum commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

flouthoc commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

Luap99 commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

TomSweeneyRedHat Oct 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

flouthoc Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ygalblum commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Luap99 commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

eriksjolund commented Oct 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Honny1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Luap99 commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

ygalblum commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

eriksjolund commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

flouthoc commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

flouthoc commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Honny1 Nov 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

flouthoc Nov 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

flouthoc commented Nov 10, 2025

Uh oh!

Honny1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

flouthoc commented Oct 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

eriksjolund commented Oct 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading