On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lance Ball <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Ben. Adding everyone else back in... > > I honestly don't mean to be obtuse here, but I'm still a little confused. > Please bear with me and a couple more questions. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:40 PM Ben Breard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I mean that fedora and centos will have versions of the rhel7-atomic >> image. With this we can potentially create smaller s2i and other useful >> things. ...but I have no other insight on who maintains what. sorry >> > > I don't understand how Fedora and CentOS can have "versions of the > "rhel7-atomic" image. Do you mean that there will be "atomic" (and > therefore hopefully, smaller) images for these OSs? So, we'd have something > like fedora-atomic and centos-atomic? > rhel7-atomic is a base image built from Red Hat Enterprise Linux rpms. The fedora & CentOS versions will be very similar, but composed from fedora & centOS rpms. I have encouraged them to adopt the same naming scheme, but that wasn't something that fedora was super excited about. I don't know where that landed, and someone from Fedora would need to comment on where that's at. Looping in Dusty & KB to get more info on this. > > >> I'm confused why you would need to install httpd, etc in a base builder >> image. Shouldn't a base s2i builder image just be the minimal requirements >> to support runtime execution in the OpenShift environment? >> >> yes!!! Here's the list: >> >> INSTALL_PKGS="autoconf \ >> automake \ >> bsdtar \ >> bzip2 \ >> findutils \ >> gcc-c++ \ >> gd-devel \ >> gdb \ >> > > Why would a plain vanilla builder image need gdb, gcc, gcc-c++, gd-devel > and make (below)? I suppose for projects that require compilation during > the build step this makes sense. But isn't that specific to a runtime > platform/language? E.g. if I'm running a Ruby application, why on earth > would I want my runtime image to contain gd-devel and gdb? And to be > honest, even for compiled projects, gdb seems a bit overkill for a runtime > build environment. > Great question for the s2i team. I suspect it's because these packages are needed for a small number of rhscl containers, so they get added to the "base". Again, hopefully someone else on this thread knows more about s2i than myself. > > >> gettext \ >> git \ >> libcurl-devel \ >> libxml2-devel \ >> libxslt-devel \ >> lsof \ >> make \ >> > mariadb-devel \ >> mariadb-libs \ >> > > Why include MariaDB by default in the builder images? Most projects won't > use this will they? Or is it specific to OpenShift's needs? > > >> openssl-devel \ >> patch \ >> postgresql-devel \ >> > > Same question as above. Why include this unless it's needed by OpenShift > itself. > > >> procps-ng \ >> scl-utils \ >> sqlite-devel \ >> > > Ditto... > > >> tar \ >> unzip \ >> wget \ >> which \ >> yum-utils \ >> zlib-devel" && \ >> > > Devel libs seem unnecessary? > > I guess on the whole, I think the base builder images for any given > operating system should have only enough in them to fulfill OpenShift > requirements. After that, it seems that subsequent builder images that > layer on top of these should be responsible for handling their own > dependencies. So, it's confusing to me why we would need to include all of > this extraneous stuff in the builder images. > > I would definitely be supportive of this, but I would leave the decision to the responsible teams. > Thanks > Lance > -- Ben Breard Sr Technology Product Manager - Linux Containers Mobile: 972-816-9081
_______________________________________________ Container-tools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
