Closed aggstam closed 9 months ago
Hi @aggstam , thank you for your PR. Just for my interest: Wouldn't it be easier just to reuse the builder image also for packaging?
Hey @clickot ,
We can obviously use the existing docker builder for this, although I haven't checked if all dependencies are present. My reasoning behind having a seperate builder, is decoupling the two processes as much as possible(building and packaging), plus having a very lightweight docker image to use as reference for AppImages building. Existing builder image is 2.7 GB, while the packager image is 290 MB, so it gives the option to use that for other scripts as well, without sacrificing the space the builder image requires(or the slower speed to build).
I can also add an image argument to the script, so user can define the builder to use, so they can reuse the builder image if they have already builded it.
Happy to hear your thoughts on the above!
Hi @aggstam, i find that both approaches (reuse builder image, decouple building and packaging as much as possible) have their advantages and disadvantages. If your approach helps especially non-debian/ubuntu users to benefit from this repo, i'm completely fine with it :-)
Minimal debian docker image, configured with all required dependencies to use
pk2appimage
. This can be used to package the source into atar.xz
and an.AppImage
, by non debian users. Its usage is similar to the existing docker builder flow, where a seperatedocker-package.sh
script is provided, which creates the docker image, mounts the source repo into it, and then executes the existingpackage.sh
script.