Re:Buildpacks vs. Dockerfiles
by kohlerm on Monday February 08, 2021 @09:23AM
(#26064797)
Buildpacks IMHO suck for reproducible builds, unless you in all versions, and even then it can be hard to find out what you are really shipping. For serious (large, whatever that means) projects this is a huge problem. Docker/Containers solve this problem nicely. Developers do not have to know all the details about base images. Just build a decent base image for them once, say for JVM if that is would they need.
As others have pointed out, there I no need to use Dockers build files approach, there are plenty of better alternatives out there.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Buildpacks vs. Dockerfiles
by jacques_chester on Monday February 08, 2021 @02:27PM
(#26068947)
You may be thinking of earlier generations.
Cloud Native Buildpacks (1) have reproducibility as a design constraint[0][1] and (2) produce container images as their output.
[0] https://buildpacks.io/docs/reference/reproducibility/
[1] https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf...
Additionally, Paketo's buildpacks build reproducible images given the same source code and buildpack versions.
As multiple people have noted, Buildpacks now are focused on creating reproducible builds. I wrote a blog post on it: https://medium.com/buildpacks/time-travel-with-pack-e0efd8bf...