Setting up a packaging environment for Alpine Linux (introducing alpkg)

Re:Setting up a packaging environment for Alpine Linux (intr... by ttfkam on Monday March 27, 2023 @02:07PM (#35330097)

I switched to debian-slim a while ago and never looked back. The base may be bigger than Alpine, but not significantly after packages and frameworks are loaded.

node:lts-slim is 75MB node:lts-alpine is 50MB

Yes, 50% larger, but also has glibc for greater compatibility and can even be faster at runtime. I know Python containers tend to be faster on Debian than Alpine. So is 25MB really worth it? Especially when that 25MB is shared between multiple containers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting up a packaging environment for Alpine Linux (intr... by MuffinFlavored on Monday March 27, 2023 @02:19PM (#35330243)

What's different between debian:bullseye-slim and debian:bullsye (assuming you are talking about https://hub.docker.com/_/debian)

let me try to answer/research this question myself to find the answer/go on this journey:

takes me to

non slim: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/tre...

slim: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/tre...

https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/blo... versus https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/blo...

two files are identical

so at a quick glance i have no clue what is going into rootfs.tar.xz that makes one slim and one not

go to google:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59794891/how-does-debian...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting up a packaging environment for Alpine Linux (intr... by ttfkam on Monday March 27, 2023 @05:12PM (#35332726)

From the hub page regarding -slim:

> These tags are an experiment in providing a slimmer base (removing some extra files that are normally not necessary within containers, such as man pages and documentation), and are definitely subject to change.

[ Parent | on HN ]