News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Tiny Container Challenge: Building a 6kB Containerized HTTP Server. Parent comment

Re:Tiny Container Challenge: Building a 6kB Containerized HT... by regularfry on Thursday April 22, 2021 @07:06AM (#26901359)
It depends which tooling layer you're using, really. If you're just saying "bundle up these files and put them on that part of the filesystem" it can be extremely simple. If you're trying to provide the full build-from-source chain... less so. Being able to ignore the Debian Packaging Guidelines is the path to sanity.

In a previous incarnation I wrote https://github.com/regularfry/au to take the grunt-work out of packaging up ruby apps, and pretty much all it does is generate the minimum set of files that `dpkg-deb` needs to spit out an archive.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tiny Container Challenge: Building a 6kB Containerized HT... by debiandev on Thursday April 22, 2021 @09:06AM (#26902299)
Debian Developer here.

Reminder: the Debian Packaging Guidelines are meant for official Debian packages.

Making a package with dpkg-deb -b <dir> <packagename> is very easy and gives all the features of APT (dependency tracking, config management, atomic deployment).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tiny Container Challenge: Building a 6kB Containerized HT... by regularfry on Thursday April 22, 2021 @10:51AM (#26903423)
Yep. If you're packaging for Debian, the packaging guidelines make sense. If you're packaging something nobody outside your org is ever going to see, you can be a lot more flexible.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tiny Container Challenge: Building a 6kB Containerized HT... by secondcoming on Thursday April 22, 2021 @09:28AM (#26902478)
Yes, dpkg-deb is a recent discovery. Out of interest, what am I losing by doing it this way rather than if I followed the official guidelines?
[ Parent | on HN ]