Possibility of Publishing to GitHub Packages

[THargreaves]

There would be considerable benefits to having the Jupyter Docker Stacks publish to GitHub Package Repository as well as DockerHub. This allows considerably faster caching than can be achieved via other means.

Are there plans to implement this? Is there anything preventing this?

[romainx]

Hello @THargreaves.

To be honest I'm not familiar with GitHub Package Repository and its policy regarding open source projects. Would we be able to store all stacks built here for free?

I don't know neither if there is a global strategy at Jupyter organization level to stick to DockerHub and / or to provide an alternative.

Sorry I'm not a big help, but it could make sense, if you or someone else has more information, do not hesitate.

Best.

[THargreaves]

No worries. Yes, GPR is free for public repositories.

As far as I am aware, the process for pushing to GPR is exactly the same as DockerHub but specifying ghcr.io when logging in, tagging, and pushing.

E.g. here is the introductory Docker example provided by GitHub

echo $PAT | docker login ghcr.io --username phanatic --password-stdin
docker tag app ghcr.io/phanatic/app:1.0.0
docker push ghcr.io/phanatic/app:1.0.0

[mathbunnyru]

For me, the main question is - do we really need faster caching?
Right now, I don't think that is the case.
At the same time, there is a growing interest in images for other architectures, so the complexity might raise significantly.

[romainx]

@mathbunnyru good point we have prototyped that building multi-arch image is not sustainable with the current build solution. There is an open issue for that #1203 that could benefit from this solution.

[mathbunnyru]

@THargreaves are you still interested in publishing images to GitHub Packages?
I don't think we need caching, because currently build system works well.

[THargreaves]

This is not something I am personally interested in or have the time to look into anymore.

[mathbunnyru]

Then, I guess, we can close this issue.