Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910
I understand the release tagging and automated build hooks of DockerHub,
but I don't see why whoever has permission to push to DockerHub cannot manually
overwrite the current "bloated&qu
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910
@apiri I understand that you cannot push code changes for a release <
1.4.0, but this isn't changing source code, only pushing a different Dockerfile
to DockerHub.
---
If your project is set
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910
Is there anyway to re-publish the 1.2.0 and 1.3.0 images so that those
aren't as large?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r123797661
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,38 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r123796605
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,38 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910
@taftster I updated the Maven version as well, and I believe it built
successfully after updating the `pom.xml` version.
Was there anything else needing to be addressed?
---
If your
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r121297796
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,37 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r121296054
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,37 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r121292308
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,37 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
Github user cricket007 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910#discussion_r121292271
--- Diff: nifi-docker/dockerhub/Dockerfile ---
@@ -16,37 +16,37 @@
# under the License.
#
-FROM openjdk:8
-MAINTAINER Apache NiFi
GitHub user cricket007 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1910
NIFI-4057 Docker Image is twice as large as necessary
Resulting Docker image in now 1.29 GB instead of 2.58 GB
**Detailed changes**
* Merging unnecessary layers
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1372
That also seems like a good idea. mkdir on NIFI_HOME, then chown, curl,
and extract.
I hit the download limit on Apache site last night (5 GB) testing some
options, so I'll continue
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1372
I mean, it seems to be an open discussion in Docker community for some
time.
I'm not too skilled in layer management to know the "correct approach" at
this moment, but the fir
Github user cricket007 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1372
Why is this image so large? Did someone not realize that `chown` is
doubling the layer that downloads the binary?
`docker history --no-trunc apache/nifi:1.3.0`
```
3 GID=50
14 matches
Mail list logo
