Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by verroq on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:21PM (#20032845)

Yeah but only google is google. You are not google, your code doesn’t need to google scale and you don’t need to go to their extremes to manage dependencies. They do it because they are forced to, doesn’t mean it is right or their way is how it should work for everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by oconnor663 on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:50PM (#20033114)

I haven't worked at Google, but I have worked at Facebook, and I can say with some confidence that in this respect Facebook is Google too :)

For sure there are tradeoffs for big projects that don't make sense for small ones. But there are also times where big projects need a tool that's "just better" than what small projects need, and once that tool has been built it can make sense for everyone to use it. I think good, strong, convenient version pinning is an example of the latter, when the tools are available. That was the inspiration for the peru tool (https://github.com/buildinspace/peru).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by weberc2 on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @03:01PM (#20033215)

I agree with this, but I think to the extent that such tools are lacking (or at least that the overhead is prohibitively high for smaller projects), the parent is correct. Thanks for tipping me off to peru; hadn't seen that before.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by OJFord on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:23PM (#20032869)

This isn't really a 'wow, look at the crazy stuff Google needs' thing.

Any tiny open source project benefits from a reproducible build (when you come back to it months later) and also new versions (with fixed vulnerabilities, and compatibility with the new thing you're trying to do).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by michaelmior on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:33PM (#20032957)

I think this depends on your definition of "reproducible build." If you're talking about builds being bit for bit identical, that might not be worthwhile given the complexities of doing so with most build tools. But if you mean the same versions being used for dependencies, then absolutely.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by OJFord on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:36PM (#20032985)

Yes, I agree completely, as replied to sibling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20032980

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by verroq on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:29PM (#20032912)

No not really, any tiny open source project isn’t worth the hassle of making a reproducible build for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Simple Dockerfile examples are often broken by default by OJFord on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @02:35PM (#20032980)

Well, I look at reproducible as a scale (and incidentally, with an increase in effort as you slide along it, too).

A certain amount of reproducibility - a container, pinned dependencies - gives such large reward for how easy it is to achieve that it absolutely is worth it for a tiny open source project.

Worrying about the possibility of unavailable package registries and revoked signing keys, on the other hand, probably isn't.

It's a trade-off. But you certainly don't need to be Google-scale for some of it to be very worth your while.

[ Parent | on HN ]