On 02/10/2016 05:13 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/10/2016 11:38 AM, Courtney Pacheco wrote: >> If possible, I'd like some feedback on the work I did. Comments and >> criticism are more than welcomed! I realize there may be some >> controversy in terms of what I chose to remove and what I chose to turn >> into weak dependencies, but I would like to hear your thoughts either >> way. >> > > First, thanks for doing this! It really shows a lot. I'd be really > curious as to what's in the remaining 144MB, given that Alpine and > BusyBox can get away with a userspace which is 25% of that size. > Well busybox supplies almost all of the executables in coreutils, shadow-utils and a few other packages, as links to the same executable, right there you are going to see a lot of savings.
The next step to shrinking would be to look for a few FAT apps, Run du -am | sort -n And see what big files are in the container image, can we eliminate any? Shrink any? > As Dan points out, we can't necessarily dispose of DNF/Yum during the > standard container build (i.e. Dockerfile). However ... could we > remove them afterwards? > > I'm also wondering if tzdata will be a problem. Some applications, > like webservers and database servers, do need the tzdata files, but I > suspect don't have it marked as a dependency since they're assumed to > "just be there". Would be nice to remove them when not needed, though. >
