Having now managed to create a 'standard' 6.5 container and view its contents, I am comparing it to an installation built from the 6.5 release archive, which has raised a few questions.

Firstly, the directory structure:

6.5 Docker container directory structure


6.5 installation from archive directory structure (split, object destination=/vm/obj, runtime&control=/vm/run)


1) Although they may not be necessary any longer, the archive route does not install the MYSQL or EXCEL/Perl libraries but the container includes them.

Perhaps more relevant:
2) The container route includes bin and 00* directories under 'sys', whereas the archive splits them (if the object and run locations are split).
3) The archive route includes several 00* directories that are not included in the container route
4) In the container rooute the 00* directories that are included are in the 'home' sys directory, but in a sub dsk0 in the archive.
5) The container route also excludes the amos and mem directories

Secondly, the 'default' ERSATZ.INI file included in the container route and used if no alternative is pointed to via the MIAME.INI file, points to several directories that do not appear to exist, although they do via the archive route:
OPR = dsk0/001002
DVR = dsk0/001006
LIB = dsk0/007000
HLP = dsk0/007001
MEM = spc0/001001 (mem/001001)
RES = spc/001002 (mem/001002)

And in addition, several directories that do not appear in either route:
BOX = dsk0/007002
MAC = dsk0/007007
ASHCFG:=DSK0:[1,7]
ASHLPD:=DSK0:[1,25]
FAXWRK:=DSK0:[1,26]
ASHBAS:=DSK0:[907,6]
SOSFUNC:=DSK0:[907,10]
SOSPROC:=DSK0:[907,12]
ASHINC:=DSK0:[907,16]
LIBXL:=DSK0:[908,68]

It would seem that most of these differences don't matter, as at least at a base Ashell level, the system appears to operate without problems.

Is there likely to be any fundamental problem with these differences/omissions?

Do you want to come to work here? (We could really use another set of eyes and the brains behind them to help sort out these seemingly endless details!) I guess the primary excuses for all of this confusion are:

• The A-Shell Docker container started out as just an experiment and although it has evolved somewhat, it never really graduated to a full release.
• We still aren't quite sure what needs to go into the image, since we aren't really sure what people want to do with it. (Being a fundamentally multi-user environment, A-Shell doesn't seem like a "natural" for dockerization.
• The standard ("archive") release package is overdue for a cleanup.

Fortunately, I don't think there is any fundamental danger in most of the inconsistencies and discrepancies you point out, although that's not to say that cleanup isn't in order. But perhaps we should try to focus more on what should be included in both the docker image and the standard/archive package.