Closed zafields closed 7 years ago
We will definitely consider this. One hand, this looks like a "no brainer", but on the other, the experimental aspect is concerning. I can imagine going with -slim
for ARM32 and non-slim for X64. I'd like to focus our efforts for X64 on Alpine and provide the standard image for X64 for folks that want Debian. We could provide both variants, but that's confusing.
I think using a different base (for each architecture, ARM and x64) to effectively deliver "the same" development surface would be very confusing.
The greatest value of containers is their ability to provide the exact same experience, regardless of the platform. If you do elect to offer a -slim
variant, then it should be available on both architectures.
However you choose to tackle this problem, please provide symmetry between the ARM and x64 architectures, the applications we build on top of these containers depend on it.
Issue moved to dotnet/dotnet-docker #254 via ZenHub
Can you also provide an image with debian:stretch-slim as the base image, instead of debian:stretch to minimize the image size for both ARM and x64?
You can find more information on the Debian Docker store page (https://store.docker.com/images/debian); specifically under the "
<suite>-slim
variants" heading.This is very helpful in scenarios where multiple containers are in use in environments with limited resources (i.e. Raspberry Pi). Using
jessie
vs.jessie-slim
as an example, you can see this removes 50MB from the base, which is roughly 1/3 of the overall storage required.