Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

libc From: Jeremy Dyer <jdy...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:36:17 AM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile I'm all about smaller and alpine. To Aldrin's point I think we just wanted something out ther

Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

I'm all about smaller and alpine. To Aldrin's point I think we just wanted something out there at first and fully expected to optimize later Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Bryan Rosander wrote: > > I'm definitely in favor of smaller images,

Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

I'm definitely in favor of smaller images, especially given the nature of the subproject. I think the MiNiFi Java image may be able to benefit from Alpine as well. Thanks, Bryan On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Aldrin Piri wrote: > Don't think there would be any

Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

Don't think there would be any objections to going smaller with Alpine and certainly makes a lot of sense, but I believe initial efforts were problematic and there was a general desire to get a foundation going. The biggest issue was needing to navigate cross compilation of a given host to the

Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

Have we considered porting the current Dockerfile from Ubuntu to Alpine? The ubuntu image, especially with all the build-time deps left in the final image, is quite bloated. This runs against the design intent of minimal footprint in minifi-cpp. Further, the new multi-stage Docker builds would