One note from jzb here:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TZTAPLTBL3WZYRNACNEV5NFF7K3DYEZN/

Suggestion from Bohuslav about keeping them stand-alone: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud%40lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/D4T23CNL3UCZ3YAQIOWTSF4BNMTNRGEG/#Z3JVOCMW2I46UTME452JV663RXSOK6IL

So, based on the conversations above, and considering we are going to deprecate fedora-dockerfiles at some point. One solution is to work off the https://github.com/projectatomic/nulecule-library repo, which is based off CentOS, and rework for Fedora where it makes sense.

Having said that, there are some ongoing conversations about merging atomic CLI and atomicapp, may make sense to wait for that to settle down.

Currently, Nulecule images ship with atomicapp, which needs an underlying OS image: CentOS (right now). However, there are talks going on to not ship atomicapp or any similar code with Nulecule images. The proposed image is going to be analogous to a tar file containing only Nulecule metadata. This, in turn, will add flexibility to use different implementations of Nulecule spec: atomicapp (right now) or any other (may be a golang implementation) read the metadata and do stuffs.

So, if we go the way of removing atomicapp code from Nulecule images, it will make little difference if the app is based on CentOS, Fedora or XYZ image. However, if we have atomicapp code inside the image, then, it does make sense to ship the apps on top of Fedora image, alongside CentOS

I'd suggest we should wait for some time to see how the above discussion proceeds, and then take action according to that. It mainly depends on the ongoing discussion about atomic CLI and atomicapp integration

The Nulecule project is currently on indefinite hold, so this is no longer a priority. Closing ticket.