Re: [Buildroot] Docker container for 2022.02.x release

["Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Thomas, All,

On 2022-08-23 21:26 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:40:40 +0200
> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > > On the hub, the latest container published is 20211120.1925 which does not
> > > seems to contain python-pytest, so my gitlab pipelines are out of order.
> > > 
> > > Have you moved to an other docker registry ?  
> > 
> > Yep. And since the images are not really meant for direct consumption,
> > we not longer push them to the dockerhub.
> > 
> > There had been an attempt at providing generic images of various
> > distributions, taht we wojuld have kinda advertised, but the effort
> > has stalled...
> 
> I really think we should change the buildroot/base image to be a
> "basic" image with really the minimal requirements for Buildroot, and
> publish this image on DockerHub. Then, we should have a buildroot/ci
> image that is in the Gitlab registry, and used by our Gitlab CI jobs.

But I think the current situation is already easy enough.

 1. people who want to try Buildroot can already use the current image:
    they just have to pull from the gitlb registry instead of the docker
    hub; there is even the utils/docker-run helper script that can be
    used to either  enter an interactive shell, or spawn an arbitrary
    command;

 2. people who want to generate their own image with more than the base
    minimum: they can point their Dockerfile FROM to our image in the
    gitlab registry;

 3. people who want to test build failures: again, pulling the image
    from the gitlab registry is easy enough, and this is not even
    required as the helper script will wrap all that.

The only caveat here, is that we should maybe better advertise that the
official image is in the gitlab registry, not the dockerhub.

So, I thik that our image should still be a base image that is only
suited for our CI, and if we need something else, then we should build
on top of that.

Finally, there is a fourth usage, that I know Thomas already complained
about, is that it is not possible to become root in the current image
because the 'buildroot' user is not sudoer (and there is no root
password), to do some quick testing.

However, it is very possible to become root in that image; just tell
docker to run as root (but we can't do that with the helper script,
granted):

    docker run -u 0:0 blabla....

You can even do so in an existing container (notice the container ID in
the prompt):

    # in one terminal:
    $ id -a
    uid=1000(ymorin) gid=1000(ymorin) ...
    $ ./utils/docker-run
    br-user@1057fdbbcb55:/some/path$ id -a
    uid=1000(br-user) gid=1000(br-user) ...

    # in another terminal:
    $ docker exec -t -i -u 0:0 1057fdbbcb55 /bin/sh
    # id -a
    uid=0(root) gid=0(root) ...

And if one needs something a litlle longer-lasting, here's a trivial
Dockerfile;

    $ cat foo/Dockerfile
    FROM registry.gitlab.com/buildroot.org/buildroot/base:20220206.1756
    USER 0:0
    $ docker build -t br-root foo
    $ docker rn --rm -ti br-root
    # id -a
    uid=0(root) gid=0(root) ...

Et voilà.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot