5 ms·

What is the fall back if a package is not available? For example, I was able to find an APK for python 3.5.1-r0. However, I can find nothing for Python 3.4 exce

What is the fall back if a package is not available? For example, I was able to find an APK for python 3.5.1-r0. However, I can find nothing for Python 3.4 except a bug report and some hacky fixes. Also, it looks like running anything that require binaries that have compiled against glibc will be wonky as hell.

jwatte 11y ago
The whole point is: Do not run with glibc! If you need something that's not available, build it.
- monkmartinez 11y ago
  Then I am debugging builds, no?
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  We've been down this road many times before. It does not historically lead to happy places. Why will it be different this time?
- FreeFull 11y ago
  And if it's a proprietary piece of software and you don't have the source code? Or you do have the source, but the build process is too convoluted to figure out?
  - newjersey 11y ago
    1. If it is proprietary, we don't need it in docker. If they want to play in this ecosystem, they have to make their source free. 2. If the build process is too convoluted, we try our best to simplify it. Building something like Mozilla Firefox might take a few hours the first time but it will not always take that long. I for one would fully support this new pro-source software distribution mechanism. We could probably use git tags to find out when we have updates if we could get people to agree on some kind of convention... Processor vendors should love this change because every server will build all the software it needs from source. Edit: downvoters, care to leave a note?
    - tokenizerrr 11y ago
      > Edit: downvoters, care to leave a note? Sure. You don't get to dictate what I run in MY docker containers hosted on MY private registry used in MY environment. If I want to run proprietary software in my docker containers, I damn well will. And I expect Docker not to work against that, if just for the reason that it works fine today, why not tomorrow?
      - newjersey 11y ago
        You're more than welcome to build that from source too! Where you get the source code could still be a private, authenticated area. You could choose to never publish your docker files. That's fine. I'm just saying that we should move to a better model where if you distribute software, you should also distribute the source code (and hopefully build tools) for it. Why is this so difficult? It does not put any constraints on the user that vendors of proprietary software haven't artificially erected.
        monkmartinez 11y ago
        Talk about creating more problems than you solve. If this was such a good model, why aren't all linux distros shipped with a minimal set of tools, where the users are given a "go build it all yourself" note on the box? I will tell you why; because it's a suckfest that can drag expert and non-expert linux swashbucklers into the weeds for untold amounts of time depending on the software that needs to be built.
        newjersey 11y ago
        Just because something is a bad idea today doesn't necessarily mean it will forever remain so. What we have today is far from perfect and I think any effort to branch out is a good idea. In the worst case, we won't be any worse off than we are today. Of course, my whole idea depends on many things such as the hypothesis that processing and storage will continue to get cheaper with time. I don't know if it will be true. I hope it will though.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
vidarh 11y ago
> What is the fall back if a package is not available? Then use another distro if you're not prepared to invest the effort into it. The point of people wanting to move Docker images to distros like Alpine is to minimize size. That matters if you're going for massive density etc., but depending on your use cases, using e.g. Ubuntu or Debian or Centos as a base can be just fine. It's worthwhile to move the official images to it because they are used so widely. It's not necessarily worth it for every random image someone puts together.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  The official images are used so widely precisely because they are trivially extendable using apt. This will not be the case if they are based of something obscure.
awinter-py 11y ago
There are even more exciting libs like numpy/scipy which rely on a system BLAS package before they can even compile (and take forever). This is a problem that Ubuntu has made less difficult but a better solution would be package managers for C and fortran. If the 'alpine experiment' results in more work on portable build tools for complex projects, that's a win for the open source community.

jwatte 11y ago

The whole point is: Do not run with glibc! If you need something that's not available, build it.

monkmartinez 11y ago
Then I am debugging builds, no?
seanp2k2 11y ago
We've been down this road many times before. It does not historically lead to happy places. Why will it be different this time?
FreeFull 11y ago
And if it's a proprietary piece of software and you don't have the source code? Or you do have the source, but the build process is too convoluted to figure out?
- newjersey 11y ago
  1. If it is proprietary, we don't need it in docker. If they want to play in this ecosystem, they have to make their source free. 2. If the build process is too convoluted, we try our best to simplify it. Building something like Mozilla Firefox might take a few hours the first time but it will not always take that long. I for one would fully support this new pro-source software distribution mechanism. We could probably use git tags to find out when we have updates if we could get people to agree on some kind of convention... Processor vendors should love this change because every server will build all the software it needs from source. Edit: downvoters, care to leave a note?
  - tokenizerrr 11y ago
    > Edit: downvoters, care to leave a note? Sure. You don't get to dictate what I run in MY docker containers hosted on MY private registry used in MY environment. If I want to run proprietary software in my docker containers, I damn well will. And I expect Docker not to work against that, if just for the reason that it works fine today, why not tomorrow?
    - newjersey 11y ago
      You're more than welcome to build that from source too! Where you get the source code could still be a private, authenticated area. You could choose to never publish your docker files. That's fine. I'm just saying that we should move to a better model where if you distribute software, you should also distribute the source code (and hopefully build tools) for it. Why is this so difficult? It does not put any constraints on the user that vendors of proprietary software haven't artificially erected.
      - monkmartinez 11y ago
        Talk about creating more problems than you solve. If this was such a good model, why aren't all linux distros shipped with a minimal set of tools, where the users are given a "go build it all yourself" note on the box? I will tell you why; because it's a suckfest that can drag expert and non-expert linux swashbucklers into the weeds for untold amounts of time depending on the software that needs to be built.
        newjersey 11y ago
        Just because something is a bad idea today doesn't necessarily mean it will forever remain so. What we have today is far from perfect and I think any effort to branch out is a good idea. In the worst case, we won't be any worse off than we are today. Of course, my whole idea depends on many things such as the hypothesis that processing and storage will continue to get cheaper with time. I don't know if it will be true. I hope it will though.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

vidarh 11y ago

> What is the fall back if a package is not available? Then use another distro if you're not prepared to invest the effort into it. The point of people wanting to move Docker images to distros like Alpine is to minimize size. That matters if you're going for massive density etc., but depending on your use cases, using e.g. Ubuntu or Debian or Centos as a base can be just fine. It's worthwhile to move the official images to it because they are used so widely. It's not necessarily worth it for every random image someone puts together.

ageofwant 11y ago
The official images are used so widely precisely because they are trivially extendable using apt. This will not be the case if they are based of something obscure.

awinter-py 11y ago

There are even more exciting libs like numpy/scipy which rely on a system BLAS package before they can even compile (and take forever). This is a problem that Ubuntu has made less difficult but a better solution would be package managers for C and fortran. If the 'alpine experiment' results in more work on portable build tools for complex projects, that's a win for the open source community.