chore: add Containerfile with website build dependencies #178
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| FROM fedora-minimal:38 | ||
|
|
||
| RUN dnf5 install -y poetry git | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. If we're going to put poetry in a container I'd prefer we use latest upstream vs distro version There was a problem hiding this comment. This is a good point. I realized even F38 doesn't have poetry 2+ in repo, so I can't use it for my projects the way I mentioned above. Of course, this is sending us down the path of creating a generic poetry image. :-) If there's a generic poetry image done separate from this, then this PR would change to "install poetry (see website for instructions) or just use this shell alias to run a docker container. There was a problem hiding this comment. Not against that but there's no official image: python-poetry/poetry#4036 I prefer to get my tooling from fedora for the most part and didn't really look at what upstream recommends from installing, if you know how to do that I can amend this PR The script is really what makes things easy, the container itself isn't too relevant imo There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm actively working on something to contribute here... not quite ready yet. There was a problem hiding this comment. You can run the get-poetry setup in the container in the run line here vs the dnf command. I'll wait and see what @bsherman has though |
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | ||
| #!/bin/bash | ||
|
|
||
| if ! [ -d "$HOME/.cache/pypoetry" ]; then | ||
| mkdir -v "$HOME/.cache/pypoetry" | ||
| fi | ||
| if ! podman image exists website:builder; then | ||
| podman build -t website:builder . | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| exec podman run --rm -it \ | ||
| --security-opt label=disable \ | ||
| -v "$PWD:$PWD" \ | ||
| -v "$HOME/.cache/pypoetry:/root/.cache/pypoetry" \ | ||
| -w "$PWD" \ | ||
| --net=host \ | ||
| --pid=host \ | ||
| website:builder poetry "$@" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the reason for using
fedora-minimalhere other than uBlue being related to the Fedora project. From what I'm seeing it's not an official image either, and I doubt it's much smaller (it's probably larger) than the alpine image's 5mb.Besides, some casual users of containerized tools might have the alpine layers cached already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My thoughts, though obviously I didn't contribute the file. :-)
Running a Fedora distro, with Fedora packaging, working on ublue and ucore, all with Fedora packages, I like keeping my toolkit as consistent as possible.
As an example, I use a fedora:38 distrobox image if I'm running on Silverblue:38, but a fedora:37 distrobox image when running on Silverblue:37.
I prefer to use fedora images to minimize drift in versions, library dependencies, etc. So, I generally don't use alpine, arch, debian, or ubuntu images for that reason. Yes, I give up some disk space perhaps, and it does cost a bit more in download bandwidth on occasion, but I have more consistency in the tooling. So it's a trade off.
Now, if I'm developing an image to distribute, where there may be a significant cost to scale of many downloads in a kubernetes cluster, and I'm trying to optimize for small layers or total size, I'll definitely look at the benefits of other base images and if they are worthwhile. That said, I have been bitten by the "python DNS issues" on alpine's musl before, so I'm not always eager to use it there either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was really long and wordy LOL
TL;DR
If we want to publish an image to share for download, use and not tinker with, I lean alpine.
If I'm building locally and think I may need to tinker and integrate with local system, I lean fedora-minimal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mm I thought Fedora minimal was official: https://fedoramagazine.org/building-smaller-container-images/
it is referenced here and in other Fedora documentation and it seems hosted in the Fedora registry
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bsherman is pretty accurate with his comment :)
I prefer consistent tooling so I like Fedora on Fedora in most cases
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apparently the one on the Fedora registry should be official, but doesn't not-specifying the registry use docker.io, where there also is a fedora-minimal but which is unofficial. Well, correct me if I'm wrong.