3 ms·

I don't get it: why wouldn't I just use a Dockerfile? The Earthfiles look the same. Dockerfiles run the same way every time and Docker supports caching. I just

I don't get it: why wouldn't I just use a Dockerfile? The Earthfiles look the same. Dockerfiles run the same way every time and Docker supports caching. I just see more complexity on top without value add. If I want to move beyond local builds then I'd use something like Garden or Skaffold. Skaffold builds the same way every time and supports remote builders.

agbell 5y ago
You can take a look at how the phoenix framework uses earthly to simplify their builds. They are testing across OTP versions and across different databases (mysql, SQL Server, postgres) all in an earthfile[1]. Ecto_sql does something similar[2]. [1] https://phoenixframework.org/blog/improving-testing-and-continuous-integration-in-phoenix https://phoenixframework.org/blog/improving-testing-and-cont... [2] https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto_sql/blob/master/Earthfile https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto_sql/blob/master/Earthfil...
ithkuil 5y ago
The Lansing page says: earthfile = makefile + dockerfile There is also an easy to understand example with several targets with dependencies between them. You can more or less achieve the same with multiple stages in a docker file, with named targets etc, but it get complicated fast.
- ossusermivami 5y ago
  indeed looks a lot better than pure dockerfile
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]