Support for files named Containerfile rather than Dockerfile

[andrewazores]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

Feature description

OCI tooling like podman and buildah supports and suggests the more neutral name Containerfile. These use the same syntax as Dockerfile. It would be nice if the docker ecosystem supported this alternate file name.

[andrewazores]

An alternate solution would be to allow specification of the full path to the Dockerfile/Containerfile in the dependabot config yaml, rather than specifying the path to the directory that is expected to contain a file named Dockerfile. But this seems like a much broader config change that would impact every ecosystem. Testing for either Dockerfile or Containerfile fits in a narrower scope of just the docker ecosystem and should be backward-compatible.

Though, it still won't fully work for projects that may have multiple different Dockerfiles/Containerfiles for different build profiles. Quarkus, for example, normally has a Dockerfile.jvm and a Dockerfile.native , depending on whether the build produced JVM bytecode or a native image.

[dhirschfeld]

An alternate solution would be to allow specification of the full path to the Dockerfile/Containerfile in the dependabot config yaml, rather than specifying the path to the directory that is expected to contain a file named Dockerfile.

+:100: not even docker requires you to name your file Dockerfile - you can call it whatever you want and point buildx to it with --file.

https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/build/#specify-a-dockerfile--f

[ssbarnea]

Ideally we should expose the filename pattern, so people can edit it. Use of Containerfile instead of Dockerfile is very popular and gaining traction as it is brand-agnostic.

[cidrblock]

+1 for using alternate names other than .*dockerfile.*. I like the idea of using an option user-provided regex.