News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Docker update ToS: Image retention limits imposed on free accounts. Parent comment

Re:Docker update ToS: Image retention limits imposed on free... by Legogris on Thursday August 13, 2020 @01:32PM (#24145878)
As long as the Dockerfile is released alongside, this should not be an issue.

I don't see any valid reason why anyone would upload and share a public docker image but not its Dockerfile and therefore do not pull anything from Dockerhub that doesn't also have the Dockerfile on the Dockerhub page.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Docker update ToS: Image retention limits imposed on free... by jacques_chester on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:01PM (#24146964)
Dockerfiles are not guaranteed to be reproducible. They can run arbitrary logic which can have arbitrary side-effects. A classic is `wget https://example.com/some-dependency/download/latest.tgz`.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Docker update ToS: Image retention limits imposed on free... by Bedon292 on Thursday August 13, 2020 @01:54PM (#24146112)
What about when the image that it is based on goes out of date and is pruned too?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Docker update ToS: Image retention limits imposed on free... by Legogris on Thursday August 13, 2020 @02:39PM (#24146690)
This is part of why I tend to only use images that only build from a small set of well-established base images like scratch, alpine, debian and occasionally ubuntu. Those base images can also be handled in the same way. For any exception, you can always do the same.

A bonus to this is that you no longer have the risks of systems breaking because of Dockerhub or quay.io (which I haven't seen mentioned here yet, btw) being offline.

[ Parent | on HN ]