update dockerfile to use beta2 binaries

[mikaelarguedas]

No description provided.

[mikaelarguedas]

ready for review

[dirk-thomas]

lgtm

[mikaelarguedas]

Is there a will to keep a Dockerfile building the code from source as an example ? I know that several users mentioned wanting to have a dockerfile for ROS2 development / testing including @chapulina yesterday.
This doesnt prevent from merging this as is it's more of a follow-up discussion

[dirk-thomas]

Currently we don't maintain any Dockerfiles for ROS 2. Instead we provide from-source instructions only. To minimize the effort to maintain both and keeping them in sync I would favor only supporting one. That can be the from source instructions (so users have to copy-n-paste the lines into a Dockerfile) or we could provide a Dockerfile which contains plenty of comments (which then can serve as the from-source instructions).

[mikaelarguedas]

That can be the from source instructions (so users have to copy-n-paste the lines into a Dockerfile) or we could provide a Dockerfile which contains plenty of comments (which then can serve as the from-source instructions).

👍 I like the idea and don't feel strongly about one rather than the other

[dirk-thomas]

The second option even has the benefit that we could automate the build which will ensure that our instructions work as intended.

[mikaelarguedas]

The second option even has the benefit that we could automate the build which will ensure that our instructions work as intended.

Agreed.
I was just wondering if the first one would not be more readable / conventional for users (not everybody is familiar with docker and could be surprised to have to remove all these RUN statements when just being willing to copy paste from the instructions like on the other platforms), that's why I didnt vouch for one or the other