On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:52:03PM +0000, Lance Ball 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.
I think the list of packages added to s2i-base is exactly the set of things which have been seen to be common across the various language images. BenP & Honza can probably expand on this. We're discussing the same thing over on the RHSCL list, FYI => http://post-office.corp.redhat.com/archives/rh-software-collections/2017-March/msg00028.html With the node image the gyp npm module is one we have had "fun" with - it needs Python and a C++ compiler. Regards, Joe > > 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? > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > Thanks > Lance -- Joe Orton // Red Hat Core Services _______________________________________________ Container-tools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
