Skip to content
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

Update the alpine base image #125

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update the alpine base image #125

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jehrhardt
Copy link

The alpine base image is already available in version 3.5. The ruby image should also use this version.

The alpine base image is already available in version 3.5. The ruby
image should also use this version.
@tianon
Copy link
Member

tianon commented May 3, 2017

See also #103, #108, and docker-library/golang#131 (comment). 😞

@jehrhardt
Copy link
Author

Does it stay open until the Go update is done?

@nilbus
Copy link

nilbus commented Jun 16, 2017

@jehrhardt Would you like to bump this to alpine:3.6?

@nilbus
Copy link

nilbus commented Jun 16, 2017

@tianon It looks like we have 2 options on the table to move forward—update the existing alpine tag and potentially break backward compatibility, or follow the example of docker-library/golang and create a new -alpine3.6 tag. Who can make that decision for this repo?

@tianon
Copy link
Member

tianon commented Jun 23, 2017

There are only two ways we're getting Alpine 3.6 for this repo, given that the common usage of it is FROM ruby:xxx in a user's Dockerfile:

  1. a new Ruby major release
  2. a new alpine3.6 variant (as has been done elsewhere)

Since Ruby 2.5 probably isn't right around the corner, we should move ahead with adding an alpine3.6 variant to Ruby 2.4. See docker-library/golang#162 for an example of how this was done for the golang image.

@jehrhardt would you like to update this PR / make a new one to implement an alpine3.6 variant for Ruby 2.4, or would you prefer that I take over from here?

@ojab
Copy link
Contributor

ojab commented Sep 22, 2017

I assume this PR can be closed?

@nilbus
Copy link

nilbus commented Sep 22, 2017

@ojab Yes, I think this is safe to close.
@tianon Would you mind taking over in a new PR, considering @jehrhardt hasn't been able to respond?

@tianon
Copy link
Member

tianon commented Sep 22, 2017

Doh! Already done in #145. 👍

@tianon tianon closed this Sep 22, 2017
@nilbus
Copy link

nilbus commented Sep 22, 2017 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants