3 ms·

The system you describe seems close to Jib [1] or Nixery [2], which are dependency-aware tools built on top of Docker. I think neither they nor the prototype yo

by ece 6y ago

The system you describe seems close to Jib [1] or Nixery [2], which are dependency-aware tools built on top of Docker. I think neither they nor the prototype you've described could be as distro/language-agnostic as Docker and ostree/flatpack are. Debian could offer something like Nixery, any distro could, but then it wouldn't be a cross-distro solution. I personally like appimage, but I don't mind using flatpack because it is so similar to Docker and is also supported on most major distros. Distro repositories aren't going anywhere, and I think flatpack strikes the right balance for users and developers. [1] https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/jib https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/jib [2] https://github.com/google/nixery https://github.com/google/nixery

compsciphd 6y ago
yes, its not distribution agnostic, what I'd argue is that "docker style" containers (i.e. created out of a composed set of layers) would benefit from being constructed out of its own layer distribution instead of a package distribution. that the benefits one gets from building images in a way that leverages layers would be a big win. simple examples: 1) we spend time ordering the layers we install in docker so as not to waste space if an earlier layer changes. in layer aware building, this isn't an issue. 2) if one does a run apt-get install XYZ, unless one nukes one's cache on every build (possibly ruining all efforts to not waste space if data comes out somewhat differently), one will not actually be getting the latest packages. The primary benefit of leveraging an existing distribution is that you have all the software they have already built (and is built to work on them). Which I don't want to downplay the value of that. I understand why the decisions were made to leverage them, I just feel they come with a cost. I'd also note that the prototype I described was basically finished being built 4 years prior to docker. we've learned a lot since then, but I think we've also forgotten a bit.

by ece 6y ago

compsciphd 6y ago

yes, its not distribution agnostic, what I'd argue is that "docker style" containers (i.e. created out of a composed set of layers) would benefit from being constructed out of its own layer distribution instead of a package distribution. that the benefits one gets from building images in a way that leverages layers would be a big win. simple examples: 1) we spend time ordering the layers we install in docker so as not to waste space if an earlier layer changes. in layer aware building, this isn't an issue. 2) if one does a run apt-get install XYZ, unless one nukes one's cache on every build (possibly ruining all efforts to not waste space if data comes out somewhat differently), one will not actually be getting the latest packages. The primary benefit of leveraging an existing distribution is that you have all the software they have already built (and is built to work on them). Which I don't want to downplay the value of that. I understand why the decisions were made to leverage them, I just feel they come with a cost. I'd also note that the prototype I described was basically finished being built 4 years prior to docker. we've learned a lot since then, but I think we've also forgotten a bit.