From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4905EC4167B for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E265E400D0; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org E265E400D0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K_-QUPobYh5I; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFA440116; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org CFFA440116 Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D781BF368 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A5181E63 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 10A5181E63 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4LKWdA9ZJFK for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9380481E61 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 9380481E61 Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BE8E60003; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from peko by dell.be.48ers.dk with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rCPTQ-002SEq-1I; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:28:20 +0100 From: Peter Korsgaard To: Arnout Vandecappelle via buildroot References: <5969347.lOV4Wx5bFT@kilian-aisec> <7af21f66-d3c5-e42f-03e5-8a1f6b370520@mind.be> <20230902094244.0251e004@windsurf> <23317020.6Emhk5qWAg@kilian-aisec> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:28:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Arnout Vandecappelle via buildroot's message of "Sat, 9 Dec 2023 22:29:32 +0100") Message-ID: <87msuhoo17.fsf@48ers.dk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-GND-Sasl: peter@korsgaard.com Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Buildroot docker image X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kilian Zinnecker , Thomas Petazzoni , yann.morin.1998@free.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle via buildroot writes: Hi, > In retrospect, this was probably a mistake :-) Alpine is based on the > musl libc, and as you noticed below, there are host tools that don't > work with musl. Clearly, nobody is using Buildroot on a musl-based > build machine at the moment, since nobody ever complained about this > (and fakeroot always needs to be built). Yes, lets stick to a "normal" glibc based distribution. > So, if we do go for Alpine as the official docker image, we can > expect quite a lot of breakage... Therefore, before going there, I > think we should go for a "normal" distro after all for the time > being. Of all the traditional distros, ubuntu:22.04 has by far the > smallest image at 80MB (this actually came as quite the surprise to > me... I have no idea why Fedora would be twice as large! But it does > already include Python, so after installing all necessary packages it > may even out again...). I think Fedora is the outlier here, Debian is similar to Ubuntu: docker image ls debian:12.2\* REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE debian 12.2-slim 31d5e503c34f 2 weeks ago 74.8MB debian 12.2 0ce03c8a15ec 2 weeks ago 117MB Given that we already use Debian for the "CI" container, it IMHO makes sense to use it here as well. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot