On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 5:50 PM Michael Still <[email protected]> wrote:
> - Create a repo for "official ONAP base images", basing the contents off > what is currently used in OOM -- so for example if there are lots of users > of Ubuntu 16.04, then we just create a ubuntu-lts image in said repo. > Well, I don't think this approach gets us very far forward. There's no advantage in hosting our own Ubuntu 16.04 as opposed to the official one. The issue I am trying to solve in my proposal is to allow a choice of base images to be used, and also to have them be unified across ONAP. So rather than the base image being "ubuntu-lts" it would be "onap-base" (with a few different tagged flavors), which could be customized as appropriate. > This at least makes it clearer what we're using, as well as making it > easier to then "push dependancies down" into those central base images. I > think its pretty clear that we need to simplify what we depend on (15 > different JDK base images right now, 11 different specifications for the > Ubuntu version, etc). > Again, I don't think "simplicity" is the main goal here. Simple is nicer, but if it works, it works. The serious problem, as I see it, is that an operator likely does not have support contracts for 15 different JDKs and several different vendored operating systems. > For reference, there are 96 unique "FROM" lines in ONAP Dockerfiles at the > moment. > That's an intriguing (and scary) number! Can you share with us how you derived it? It would be useful for tracking our progress. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#11981): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/11981 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24626855/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
