Conversation
|
Could you please rebase this and I will pull it. |
|
Any interest in an Alpine-based image? I've got one lying around. |
|
What is an Alpine-based image? |
This was used to update the lfex/lfe and lfex/lfe-docs Dockerhub images. In addition to some minor cleanup, it did the following: * Upgraded the dockerfile to use Erlang 19.1 * Upgraded LFE to use the latest dev version, 1.3-dev
oubiwann
force-pushed
the
update-docker
branch
from
f14f8d8 to
7b9e89e
Compare
|
@yurrriq Actually, there's already a project that tracks miscellaneous LFE docker images: That might be the best place for the Alpine-based image... |
|
Cool! |
|
@rvirding Would you rather we simplify the LFE repo, and remove the |
|
No, not really. I have nothing against having it there. I just wasn't aware that you had to do specific dockers for different systems (logical really) and then just wondered why we have one and not many. Also when we get olp working and standard then the problem should be moved there in some way. |
|
I clicked the squash and merge button by mistake so the original branch has not been removed. Sorry about that. You will have to remove the original branch to get rid of it. |
This was used to update the lfex/lfe and lfex/lfe-docs Dockerhub images. In addition to some minor cleanup, it did the following: * Upgraded the dockerfile to use Erlang 19.1 * Upgraded LFE to use the latest dev version, 1.3-dev
3 participants
This was used to update the lfex/lfe and lfex/lfe-docs Dockerhub images. In
addition to some minor cleanup, it did the following: