Update samples to Alpine

[ashnaga]

Fixes #2167

[dnfadmin]

All CLA requirements met.

[mthalman]

Because the tag names have changed, you'll also need to update this file to reference those new names: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/blob/main/eng/mcr-tags-metadata-templates/samples-tags.yml. After updating that file, run .\eng\readme-templates\Get-GeneratedReadmes.ps1 to update the readme to reflect the new tags.

[mthalman]

Please add a newline at the end of the file. Applies to the other Dockerfile too.

[ashnaga]

Done

[ashnaga]

Because the tag names have changed, you'll also need to update this file to reference those new names: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/blob/main/eng/mcr-tags-metadata-templates/samples-tags.yml. After updating that file, run .\eng\readme-templates\Get-GeneratedReadmes.ps1 to update the readme to reflect the new tags.

Done

[mthalman]

FYI: I rebased this to nightly so we can get it merged there first. Then we'll merge it to main and get the new images published as part of the November release.

[mthalman]

I'm investigating an issue with the tests where they're not testing what we expect to be tested. This was apparently an issue prior to these changes but I just discovered it today.

[mthalman]

I have fixed the tests locally but that's uncovered a product issue which I've logged at dotnet/sdk#28809.

[mthalman]

I have fixed the tests locally but that's uncovered a product issue which I've logged at dotnet/sdk#28809.

Looks like this won't be fixed in GA. Our choices:

1. Hold off on making these changes until it is fixed (hopefully 7.0.1)
2. Get rid of the Dockerfile currently defined in this PR and replace it with Dockerfile.alpine-arm64-slim and Dockerfile.alpine-arm32-slim (we already have Dockerfile.alpine-x64-slim). Then when it is fixed we can add the multi-arch Dockerfile.alpine-slim file and probably delete those two Arm-based Dockerfiles.

[ashnaga]

2. Get rid of the Dockerfile currently defined in this PR and replace it with Dockerfile.alpine-arm64-slim and Dockerfile.alpine-arm32-slim (we already have Dockerfile.alpine-x64-slim). Then when it is fixed we can add the multi-arch Dockerfile.alpine-slim file and probably delete those two Arm-based Dockerfiles.

We should pick the option 2 as the goal is to have reduced size samples (using arch specific Dockerfiles) for better customer experience. But I am not sure on the benefit of deleting and adding the multi-arch file later.

[mthalman]

We should pick the option 2 as the goal is to have reduced size samples (using arch specific Dockerfiles) for better customer experience.

Option 1 gives us the reduced size as well, just a month later.

But I am not sure on the benefit of deleting and adding the multi-arch file later.

The multi-arch file is the canonical and more maintainable solution that we would want to guide customers to use.

[MichaelSimons]

I am in favor of #2. There will be marketing buzz at 7.0.0 GA that we should take advantage of by making our published samples quicker to pull therefore leaving a more favorable impression.