Skip to content

build: lightweight busybox-based container build #5285

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 13, 2025

Conversation

outlook84
Copy link
Contributor

@outlook84 outlook84 commented Jul 12, 2025

Description

  • Busybox as runtime base-image
  • Use JSON.sh as lightweight json parser

Final image size:
图片

Checklist

Before submitting your PR, please indicate which issues are either fixed or closed by this PR. See GitHub Help: Closing issues using keywords.

  • I am aware the project is currently in maintenance-only mode. See README
  • I am aware that translations MUST be made through Transifex and that this PR is NOT a translation update
  • I am making a PR against the master branch.
  • I am sure File Browser can be successfully built. See builds and development.

@outlook84 outlook84 requested review from o1egl and hacdias as code owners July 12, 2025 23:35
@outlook84 outlook84 changed the title Lightweight busybox-based container build build: lightweight busybox-based container build Jul 12, 2025
@jagadam97
Copy link
Contributor

@outlook84
I taught you will be removing upx in this PR.
or do you want to go with upx along with busybox?? because the combo is gonna be like ~10MB docker image.

FYI:
(without any running processes)
filebrowser with out upx takes around 24MB ram
with upx takes around 30MB ram

cold start is not such a problem as the application is only few MB and decompressing it into ram not a huge time consumer

@jagadam97
Copy link
Contributor

Ho you removed it now. Ok.

@outlook84
Copy link
Contributor Author

@outlook84 I taught you will be removing upx in this PR. or do you want to go with upx along with busybox?? because the combo is gonna be like ~10MB docker image.

FYI: (without any running processes) filebrowser with out upx takes around 24MB ram with upx takes around 30MB ram

cold start is not such a problem as the application is only few MB and decompressing it into ram not a huge time consumer

22.5 MB image size is without upx.

I build filebrowser binary via cli, forgot to remove upx from workflow. Already done now.

@hacdias hacdias merged commit 5c5942d into filebrowser:master Jul 13, 2025
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants