3 ms·
Buildpacks IMHO suck for reproducible builds, unless you in all versions, and even then it can be hard to find out what you are really shipping. For serious (la
by kohlerm 6y ago
Buildpacks IMHO suck for reproducible builds, unless you in all versions, and even then it can be hard to find out what you are really shipping. For serious (large, whatever that means) projects this is a huge problem. Docker/Containers solve this problem nicely. Developers do not have to know all the details about base images. Just build a decent base image for them once, say for JVM if that is would they need.
As others have pointed out, there I no need to use Dockers build files approach, there are plenty of better alternatives out there.
- jacques_chester 6y agoYou may be thinking of earlier generations. Cloud Native Buildpacks (1) have reproducibility as a design constraint[0][1] and (2) produce container images as their output. [0] https://buildpacks.io/docs/reference/reproducibility/ https://buildpacks.io/docs/reference/reproducibility/ [1] https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf05db https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf...
- sclevine 6y agoAdditionally, Paketo's buildpacks build reproducible images given the same source code and buildpack versions.
- dfrey1 6y agoAs multiple people have noted, Buildpacks now are focused on creating reproducible builds. I wrote a blog post on it: https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf05db https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf...