Docker image tweaks #230
Docker image tweaks #230
Conversation
mjurbanski-reef
force-pushed
the
docker_image_tweaks
branch
from
f72eeb6 to
8411b1b
Compare
mjurbanski-reef
force-pushed
the
docker_image_tweaks
branch
from
8411b1b to
845c1e4
Compare
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
~170kB; but perhaps more imortant it looked weird to just have that tar left in there
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
~170kB; but perhaps more imortant it looked weird to just have that tar left in there
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
~170kB; but perhaps more imortant it looked weird to just have that tar left in there
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
~170kB; but perhaps more imortant it looked weird to just have that tar left in there
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
~170kB; but perhaps more imortant it looked weird to just have that tar left in there
| @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ LABEL build-date-iso8601="${build_date}" | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR /root | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ${tar_path}/${tar_name} . | |||
| RUN ["pip", "install", "${tar_name}[full]"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
--no-cache-dir saves ~6MB
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-slim as base | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-alpine as base | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suprisingly enough, alpine switch "just works"; seems all binary dependencies do have musl wheel
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-slim as base | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-alpine as base | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suprisingly enough, alpine switch "just works"; seems all binary dependencies do have musl wheel
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-slim as base | |||
| FROM python:${python_version}-alpine as base | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
using builder stage did not help save any disk space and was troublesome to get working - you have to be really careful what you want to copy, which makes Dockerfile significantly more complex.
We probably could do our custom python-base imagine, but I don't see that paying off as we don't even know how many MBs we can save that way.
If we ever start using standalone binary in these images instead, we are likely to see better results than optimizing python install.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok but the builder stage wasn't there when you started working on the thing, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there was no builder stage
|
closed as alpine may degrade performance (unconfirmed) |
No description provided.