docker-alpine | Win at minimalism | Continuous Deployment library

I faced a similar problem with php:7.4-fpm-alpine image.

It seems like wkhtmltopdf is missing in Alpine v.3.15, but it is available in v.3.14.

Try to change

I would answer "How can I install curl and bash at build-time" not "How to set time in Docker container at build time":

I guess apk is failing because repo TLS certificate dl-cdn.alpinelinux.org is not valid after 2037 = valid TLS connection can be created. You only need to install package, so you may sacrifice TLS security in this case and plain HTTP connectuon to repository can be used as a workaround. E.g.

At least one of the listed dependencies could not be resolved using an official package:

In the docker compose file you have

This might be related to linking problem, which appears as 'not found' many times in Alpine Linux when something is wrong with symlinks. When you build your numpy dependencies in the Debian based distro, it is linked to glibc in specific path. Usually, similar paths are also in Alpine. I'm not sure how this works with venv.

I would suggest that, as you managed (I think) to install numpy directly in Alpine based container, to use Alpine distro as builder as well. Otherwise you might need to change some linked paths manually.

If you look for example folder /lib64 in Alpine, the ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 should be in there, so it is not totally missing. (after installing libc6-compat package).

But in general, Alpine is not the best choice for Python as the programming language is based on C, and musl is not perfect. Alpine could be also much slower for Python

The key difference between these is that older versions of the busybox image statically linked busybox against glibc (current versions dynamically link busybox against glibc due to use of libnss even in static configuration), whereas the alpine image dynamically links against musl libc.

Going into the weighting factors used to choose between these in detail would be off-topic here (software recommendation requests), but some key points:

Comparing glibc against musl libc, a few salient points (though there are certainly many other factors as well):

• glibc is built for performance and portability over size (often adding special-case performance optimizations that take a large amount of code).
• musl libc is built for correctness and size over performance (it's willing to be somewhat slower to have a smaller code size and to run in less RAM); and it's much more aggressive about having correct error reporting (instead of just exiting immediately) in the face of resource exhaustion.
• glibc is more widely used, so bugs that manifest against its implementation tend to be caught more quickly. Often, when one is the first person to build a given piece of software against musl, one will encounter bugs (typically in that software, not in musl) or places where the maintainer explicitly chose to use GNU extensions instead of sticking to the libc standard.
• glibc is licensed under LGPL terms; only software under GPL-compatible terms can be statically linked against it; whereas musl is under a MIT license, and usable with fewer restrictions.

Comparing the advantages of a static build against a dynamic build:

• If your system image will only have a single binary executable (written in C or otherwise using a libc), a static build is always better, as it discards any parts of your libraries that aren't actually used by that one executable.
• If your system image is intended to have more binaries added that are written in C, using dynamic linking will keep the overall size down, since it allows those binaries to use the libc that's already there.
• If your system image is intended to have more binaries added in a language that doesn't use libc (this can be the case for Go and Rust, f/e), then you don't benefit from dynamic linking; you don't need the unused parts of libc there because you won't be using them anyhow.

Honestly, these two images don't between themselves cover the whole matrix space of possibilities; there are situations where neither of them is optimal. There would be value to having an image with only busybox that statically links against musl libc (if everything you're going to add is in a non-C language), or an image with busybox that dynamically links against glibc (if you're going to add more binaries that need libc and aren't compatible with musl).

Let's fix this.

I've managed to run wkhtmltopdf isolated on a docker container.

Dockerfile:

It can be tricky to share binaries between containers like this. Volumes probably aren't the mechanism you're looking for.

If you look at the Docker Hub page for the php image you can see that php:7.4-apache is an alias for (currently) php:7.4.15-apache-buster, where "Buster" is the name of a Debian release. You can then search on https://packages.debian.org/ to discover that Debian has a prepackaged wkhtmltopdf package. You can install this using a custom Dockerfile:

Based on this answer made by Graham Dumpleton

If you are using OpenShift Online, it is not possible to enable the docker build type. For OpenShift Online your options are to build your image locally and then push it up to an external image registry such as Docker Hub, or login to the internal OpenShift registry and push your image directly in to it. The image can then be used in a deployment.

If you have set up your own OpenShift cluster, my understanding is that docker build type should be enabled by default. You can find more details at:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.11/admin_guide/securing_builds.html

If you are after a way to deploy a site using a httpd web server, there is a S2I builder image available that can do that. See:

https://github.com/sclorg/httpd-container

OpenShift Online provides the source build strategy (S2I). Neither docker or custom build strategies are enabled. So you can build images in OpenShift Online, but only using the source build strategy.