Re: [atomic-devel] Are we slim yet?

[Colin Walters <walters verbum org>]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014, at 01:58 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:

> So for this one, do we even want git in the base image *at all*? I see
> that the usecase that you mentioned in the bug was for downloading
> Dockerfiles which are maintained in git. I don't see people (but maybe
> I'm wrong) building images on an Atomic host,

For the developer scenario where the host system is Windows or OS X, and the developer is running Atomic (possibly multiple instances) in virtual machines via e.g. Vagrant, we need something that's convenient to use to build containers locally for testing.

> but rather using
> something to download the finished images from either a private
> registry or the Docker Hub, as applicable. 

Right, some people have said that they feel Atomic is something you use for production, whereas for local development instances you'd just use a "mainline" system.  While I understand the perspective, I think a really great thing about Docker is it makes it significantly easier to have local development cases match production, and I would like to do what we can to have Atomic work well for that too.  As much as we can without sacrificing size.

For example, Atomic coming out of the box with direct LVM is quite important as well for even local dev scenario where you want to be able to at least simulate large data volumes or many containers if you have the local disk space.

That all said, acquiring git via the "toolbox container" approach (or package layering) would likely be viable as well.