Re: [atomic-devel] Reducing the footprint of the Fedora docker base image

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

On 02/10/2016 04:44 PM, Matt Micene wrote:

The general consensus is to create a separate "utility" container which contains DNF and other similar tools (e.g., rhel tools).

I'm a bit confused, how does this help folks who are trying to build their own containers from a Fedora base Docker image?  Containers to build containers? Use the utility as the base?

In the long run it would be nice to get dnf and other tools that build the image out of the image.  If you consider docker a mechanism used to ship software then shipping the build artifacts allow with the executable is probably not a great idea.  It is like shipping the BuildRequires: fields as part of the final binary RPM. 

The idea would be to have a builder tool that would volume mount in dnf or other tools during the build or to build an image using tools on the outside and produce an image.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccoleman redhat com> wrote:

Yup, absolutely.  Slimming down where we can is great - but I don't
want people to get a bad impression with the core fedora image for
sure.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Josh Berkus <jberkus redhat com> wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 12:42 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
>>
>> Removing dnf would break most people who depend on fedora base images,
>> since installing new packages is the reason people depend on the
>> fedora base image.  Creating a fedora base image would dnf is
>> interesting as a side project (fedora-minimal?) but I doubt would ever
>> see wide use in the community, because it would double or triple the
>> amount of work someone has to do to actually use the image.  It would
>> appear to the user as if the fedora image is broken with very little
>> explanation, and not fit the common use people have for OS base
>> images.
>
>
> Well, we can do without DNF and RPM for OStree-built images, no?
>
> --
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Project Atomic
> Red Hat OSAS