#112 Ultimately reducing the tools installed in the Fedora docker image, but first getting messaging and expectations right
Closed None Opened 4 years ago by bex.

See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bex/docker_image_reduction

A quick examination of just commands loaded in /usr/bin showed significant differences between the F21 and F22 docker images. Consensus seems to be forming around the idea that the Fedora docker image should be composed of a minimum install of Fedora required to get dnf running. After that all tools desired by the consumer should be added by the consumer. This is inline with the "one process per container" philosphy that many people use when thinking about containers.

However, we did ship more than a minimal image with F21 and we broke that expectation in F22. Additionally, other distributions are shipping images that contain some "non-minimal" tools, such as 'ps' or 'vi', therefore users may expect them be in the Fedora images.

One solution is to include these tools today, but to explicitly note that they are not guaranteed to be included in future versions. Additionally, we should begin to encourage a new best practice of explicitly dnf installing any tools needed. Today these installs will be noops, tomorrow they will actually do the install.

The full list of proposed re-additions for F22 and ultimate deletions is on the wiki page


Once we get Layered Image building working and integrated, what about a "Fedora Utils" layered image, which contains ps, vi, and whatever else? Then, people who want that could derive from that.

Matt, this is one of the ideas that got discussed, a "Fedora Lite" vs. "Fedora Heavy". I would further that by saying that when we get the layered build service, we should have a use-case basis for the various image types, otherwise we risk creating something that is chock full of stuff no one wants together.

My point was that "Fedora Heavy" ("Fedora Docker Image, with Batteries Included!") could simply be a layer on top of the Lite version, rather than a whole separate base.

If that was already the plan, never mind me -- carry on!

Matt, I must confess my ignorance. I am not sure how to distribute a layer via a registry. If you mean that we will have the "lite" base image and a second image that starts with "FROM lite" - then yes, we are on the same page.

I believe the current plan though is for a single "heavy" image until we are ready with the build system and the use cases.

Closing this ticket as part of trac clean up process. If you want to reopen, please reopen it after we move to pagure.io as atomic-wg.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata