3 ms·
From my side I'd love to see clear comparison to distroless[1] images, the best info I could find was this Github issue comment[2], although I would expect to f
by aerfio 3y ago
From my side I'd love to see clear comparison to distroless[1] images, the best info I could find was this Github issue comment[2], although I would expect to find it in https://github.com/wolfi-dev#faq https://github.com/wolfi-dev#faq. Or maybe my google-fu failed me :(
[1]: https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/distroless https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/distroless
[2]: https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/5507#issuecomment-1249368724 https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/5507#issuecommen...
- dlor 3y agoI was (one of) the original creators of the Google Distroless project. The main difference is that Original Distroless uses Debian as the upstream. This is great in many ways, but makes it so stuff outside of Debian is hard to package in. Wolfi is its own upstream - packages are sourced and built directly from source, without another Linux distro. The rest of the differences stem from here - we get more control over what we package and how, and are able to more quickly add new versions of packages, or roll out CVE patches.
- aerfio 3y agoDo you see any significant changes in comparison to the "gcr.io/distroless/static" image, which is commonly used in Go ecosystem? Thanks for answer btw, really appreciate that.
- dlor 3y agoFor static, not really just because there's so little in it. For apps that need CGO there's a benefit as more dependencies are required. CGO apps are broken right now IIUC in distroless/glibc-dynamic because of the Debian glibc bump.