-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
Minideb #13
Comments
I haven't had a chance to even try building under minideb yet, i see no reason it shouldn't just be a quick swap to get it up and running though. Just fyi alpine builds and works I just am explicitly blocking it from being tagged on the hub. I'm trying to get the alpine image actually turned into packages for alpine base instead of being a whole docker image. When things slow down at work I'll take a look at minideb. |
Took me way longer than I intended to look at this. Just to compare a few file sizes for options on slimming down the image. for comparison jacobalberty/firebird:3.0 is 184MB minideb:jessie is 113MB I'm tempted to try and just move to stretch-slim, its only 2MB bigger than the minideb:jessie and as long as docker and debian are around they're going to keep the debian images updated... Of course the problem with stretch is jessie uses libicu52 while stretch uses libicu57, which means indexes would be broken without either a backup and restore, or an index rebuild, so either way is messy. |
I guess this can be closed , i see that debian:bullseye-slim is used to build the images , so i guess that fixes the size issue :) |
This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days. |
Hi Jacob!
The nice guys @Bitnami made a very interesting image which they are using for all their Docker images. It is a very battle-tested solution.
You can read more about it here and here.
TL;DR
:Do you think this could be used instead of current
debian:jessie
image?Please note that, contrary to what I suggested in #10, I'm not asking you to maintain a new image. I know
alpine
is stretching the limits and it is reasonable to keep a different fork (like many other projects do). But I believe this is not the case here.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: