[Container-tools] Community Node.js Builder Images

[Ben Breard]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lance Ball <lball at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply Ben. Adding everyone else back in...
>
> I honestly don't mean to be obtuse here, but I'm still a little confused.
> Please bear with me and a couple more questions.
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:40 PM Ben Breard <bbreard at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I mean that fedora and centos will have versions of the rhel7-atomic
>> image. With this we can potentially create smaller s2i and other useful
>> things. ...but I have no other insight on who maintains what. sorry
>>
>
> I don't understand how Fedora and CentOS can have "versions of the
> "rhel7-atomic" image. Do you mean that there will be "atomic" (and
> therefore hopefully, smaller) images for these OSs? So, we'd have something
> like fedora-atomic and centos-atomic?
>

rhel7-atomic is a base image built from Red Hat Enterprise Linux rpms. The
fedora & CentOS versions will be very similar, but composed from fedora &
centOS rpms. I have encouraged them to adopt the same naming scheme, but
that wasn't something that fedora was super excited about. I don't know
where that landed, and someone from Fedora would need to comment on where
that's at.

Looping in Dusty & KB to get more info on this.

>
>
>> I'm confused why you would need to install httpd, etc in a base builder
>> image. Shouldn't a base s2i builder image just be the minimal requirements
>> to support runtime execution in the OpenShift environment?
>>
>> yes!!! Here's the list:
>>
>>   INSTALL_PKGS="autoconf \
>>   automake \
>>   bsdtar \
>>   bzip2 \
>>   findutils \
>>   gcc-c++ \
>>   gd-devel \
>>   gdb \
>>
>
> Why would a plain vanilla builder image need gdb, gcc, gcc-c++, gd-devel
> and make (below)? I suppose for projects that require compilation during
> the build step this makes sense. But isn't that specific to a runtime
> platform/language? E.g. if I'm running a Ruby application, why on earth
> would I want my runtime image to contain gd-devel and gdb? And to be
> honest, even for compiled projects, gdb seems a bit overkill for a runtime
> build environment.
>

Great question for the s2i team. I suspect it's because these packages are
needed for a small number of rhscl containers, so they get added to the
"base". Again, hopefully someone else on this thread knows more about s2i
than myself.


>
>
>>   gettext \
>>   git \
>>   libcurl-devel \
>>   libxml2-devel \
>>   libxslt-devel \
>>   lsof \
>>   make \
>>
>   mariadb-devel \
>>   mariadb-libs \
>>
>
> Why include MariaDB by default in the builder images? Most projects won't
> use this will they? Or is it specific to OpenShift's needs?
>
>
>>   openssl-devel \
>>   patch \
>>   postgresql-devel \
>>
>
> Same question as above. Why include this unless it's needed by OpenShift
> itself.
>
>
>>   procps-ng \
>>   scl-utils \
>>   sqlite-devel \
>>
>
> Ditto...
>
>
>>   tar \
>>   unzip \
>>   wget \
>>   which \
>>   yum-utils \
>>   zlib-devel" && \
>>
>
> Devel libs seem unnecessary?
>
> I guess on the whole, I think the base builder images for any given
> operating system should have only enough in them to fulfill OpenShift
> requirements. After that, it seems that subsequent builder images that
> layer on top of these should be responsible for handling their own
> dependencies. So, it's confusing to me why we would need to include all of
> this extraneous stuff in the builder images.
>
> I would definitely be supportive of this, but I would leave the decision
to the responsible teams.



>  Thanks
> Lance
>



-- 

Ben Breard
Sr Technology Product Manager - Linux Containers
Mobile: 972-816-9081
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/container-tools/attachments/20170317/41fd271f/attachment.htm>