feat: Swapped out centos for alpine #4412
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
cagiti
changed the title
|
Is this going to have a knock-on effect to the other builder images? |
| @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ | |||
| FROM centos:7 | |||
| FROM alpine:3.10 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, I love the idea of switching to Alpine. I am using Alpine myself when testing images and have a very similar Dockerfile. It makes building and pushing custom images more lightweight. For what it's worth I am using:
FROM alpine:3.10
RUN apk --update add ca-certificates git
COPY ./build/linux/jx /usr/bin/jx
I find the current ENTRYPOINT just gets into the way when using the image. I'd remove it.
One thing to keep in mind here is that we might want to try to align the used based images. @jstrachan and I had a discussion around this the other day and James was interested in somehow trying to align on a common base image. Also, he mentioned that centos was originally used due to some issues (DNS!?) with Alpine. For my part I have not seen any problems yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alpine has had horrendous issues relating to DNS resolution within Kubernetes that they never seemed to be able to resolve and generally blamed upon “dependencies outside their control”.
Alpine is also not compatible with certain physical infrastructure in the cloud, such as GPU cards, due to a lack of driver support. For this reason, the machine learning builders require Centos.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alpine has had horrendous issues relating to DNS resolution within Kubernetes that they never seemed to be able to resolve and generally blamed upon “dependencies outside their control”.
I guess you are referring to gliderlabs/docker-alpine#255. I was not aware of this issue and have not noticed it before.
I wonder though if it is really alpine specific. I wonder whether the issues we seeing at times to clone a git repo are not also related to DNS issues. But that's just a guess.
That said, I am not bound to alpine at all. I just would like to have a more leight weight default image.
Alpine is also not compatible with certain physical infrastructure in the cloud, such as GPU cards, due to a lack of driver support. For this reason, the machine learning builders require Centos.
Sure, there are always special needs. But in the end you can always use custom images, right?
But maybe this should be discussed on an issue instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this going to have a knock-on effect to the other builder images?
It shouldn't, I don't believe this is used as a base image
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do we move forward with this PR?
|
/test all |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4412 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 43.84% 43.82% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 817 825 +8
Lines 103400 104467 +1067
==========================================
+ Hits 45337 45785 +448
- Misses 54121 54677 +556
- Partials 3942 4005 +63
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Signed-off-by: Cai Cooper <[email protected]>
|
@cagiti: The following test failed, say
View all Builds for this Pull Request Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
@cagiti shall we close this PR for now? |
Makes the jx image a little lighter :)