-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 317
fix: run ghost under the production environment. #5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
I still think it'd be better to document how a user can do this themselves, since this is very likely to break with future releases of Ghost (especially that really hairy |
I ran into the same issue and I also don't really like the approach with So could |
With the current entrypoint, this is fixed? |
I have been fighting with this image for the last couple days, so I wanted to share my thoughts with you on some production related issues. Using the container as-is "hardcodes" the base URL to "http://localhost:2368" in several places, for example when clicking on the lower left link with the name of the blog points to that "http://localhost:2368" URL. To customize that URL it's needed to provide a But for a user that wants to just start a Ghost blog with Docker without having to learn and modify how it works (what I was trying first) that would be a bit cumbersome. Would you be against using the Using that config and some documentation would allow people to use Ghost and modify the base URL with an ENV var and without having to know how to write a proper And I don't really see why would I want to have a default The other thing is, I don't know why is it important to run the container as a user different than But I see that there are some issues (in the issues and comments) while not running as One case that I see that gave me a lot of trouble to discover (because the Node.js error was not helping much) is, a non-root user cannot bind to a port lower than 1024. So, if I tried a I would suggest, at least to start, one of the following:
I could write a PR, but I would like to hear your opinions first to direct my efforts to just one of those (if you think any of those could apply). |
I believe #15 (comment) still sums up the current state of running the Ghost image as-is in production mode:
I believe upstream is working on refactoring the way they handle configuration in the upcoming release (to use nconf, if I remember correctly), but I can't find where we've discussed that previously ATM. This upstream issue looks very relevant: TryGhost/Ghost#7488 Given that there are some good notes over in #15 for now, I'm closing this, and am hopeful that the new nconf work upstream will help with this problem (at the very least, it'll change any "official" solution we come up with now). Thanks! |
Solve the issue of starting in production environment in #2