3 ms·

Alpine is built around musl libc, which has numerous compatibility differences from a traditional glibc: http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Functional_differences_f

Alpine is built around musl libc, which has numerous compatibility differences from a traditional glibc: http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Functional_differences_from_glibc http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Functional_differences_from_g... Some folks solve this by adding glibc to Alpine (IIUC this is what Envoy is building upon). It has a package manager, but it is far from as comprehensive. The security database is still essentially an experiment with much less richness than Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, ... If what you want is a package manager, you probably want minideb from the Bitnami folks.

earlybike 9y ago
> numerous compatibility differences I did never experienced any. > It has a package, but it is far from comprehensive Still better than the missing package manager of a distroless container (this was the comparison). However, I think it‘s quite good. > The security database is still essentially an experiment with much less richness than Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, ... Do you have some sources proving it‘s an experiment?
- mattomata 9y ago
  When I have reached out to ncopa to report issues in their feed he responded: > the secdb has so far been an experiment, but seems like people are actually using it, so I should set up some proper automated testing. I doubt there is a better source :)
  - earlybike 9y ago
    Thanks, do you have any link?
    - mattomata 9y ago
      Nope, it was over email. I can point you at the various fixes for things I've reported since this first became available, but given your skepticism I'm sure it would not help since he seems to exclusively use the changeset description: "[add] various fixes" with no attribution. Here's the link for that last bit: https://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/alpine-secdb/log/ https://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/alpine-secdb/log/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3 ms·

Alpine is built around musl libc, which has numerous compatibility differences from a traditional glibc: http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Functional_differences_f

by mattomata 9y ago

earlybike 9y ago
> numerous compatibility differences I did never experienced any. > It has a package, but it is far from comprehensive Still better than the missing package manager of a distroless container (this was the comparison). However, I think it‘s quite good. > The security database is still essentially an experiment with much less richness than Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, ... Do you have some sources proving it‘s an experiment?
- mattomata 9y ago
  When I have reached out to ncopa to report issues in their feed he responded: > the secdb has so far been an experiment, but seems like people are actually using it, so I should set up some proper automated testing. I doubt there is a better source :)
  - earlybike 9y ago
    Thanks, do you have any link?
    - mattomata 9y ago
      Nope, it was over email. I can point you at the various fixes for things I've reported since this first became available, but given your skepticism I'm sure it would not help since he seems to exclusively use the changeset description: "[add] various fixes" with no attribution. Here's the link for that last bit: https://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/alpine-secdb/log/ https://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/alpine-secdb/log/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯