-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 905
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
Review and Document Dockerfiles #1019
Comments
From @mstemm in Slack 👍
|
Another quick note, as #1024 starts to ramp up, we in theory should be able to drastically simplify our Dockerfiles I think in a perfect world all a Falco dockerfile will do is use the in-house package manager to install Falco as it would on any other operating system. |
Now that the main docker images have been refactored (PR #1059, #1063, #1069, #1076, etc) let's recap the current situation so to highlight what we still could/should do about them.
Some considerations:
|
I agree with everything !! @leodido let's make it happen |
I agree - like we said in slack I think we need to be aware of what we keep in the repository as we stage for our first Also we mentioned renaming the probeloader on the last call - we should probably consider that as well as here. Once we label something |
We need to review this page, and maybe merge in it what I wrote two comments above. After that, and after we remove the unused docker images, I think we'll be able to close this. |
FYI @Issif |
I totally agree too. Furthermore, |
Motivation
After mentioning deprecating docker images in #1015 I think this merits a holistic review of our Dockerfiles.
Feature
Can we please audit, and document which container images we are supporting, how each of them should be used, and assign owner(s) for them?
Alternatives
Additional context
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: