Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

ariadne.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#121

Post by stu2010 »

IshKebab wrote: post #67
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #63

If you want glibc, why use Alpine? Mainstream distributions are for glibc. Alpine exists specifically as a musl-based thing.

Yeah I thought the whole point of Alpine was that it abandoned the insanity of glibc for the relative sanity of musl. My only guess is that they like Alpine but want to run some binary software that links with glibc.

musl is definitely more developer-friendly than glibc, which may lead to a brighter future for it, but right now at this time there's significant downsides to choosing musl.

Performance in real world applications is worse on musl vs glibc, at a level that can result in higher latencies and needing to spend more on compute resources to serve a given level of load.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#122

Post by sgerrand »

Maintainer of the Alpine glibc package referenced here. For some background context, this package was originally created to solve a specific problem long before Alpine provided glibc compatibility packages like `libc6-compat` and others. I agree that this package shouldn't be considered "blessed" or an official Alpine package or a default solution for running programs originally compiled against the GNU C library on Alpine Linux, far from it. The source control repository uses `alpine-pkg-` as a prefix to denote what it's used for—not as a means of assumed official status or such like.

What I find saddening is to see passive aggressive statements like

> I have additionally suggested that the TSC may wish to have the Alpine Council reach out to the alpine-glibc project to find a solution which appropriately communicates that the project is not supported in any way by Alpine.

To the Alpine Linux TSC: please get in contact with me about any and all disclaimers you want to add to this package! I'd love to have these discussions faster and in the open, rather than discovering this disquiet tangentially. Let's get these issues resolved as soon as possible in a way that everyone concerned finds acceptable.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#123

Post by sgerrand »

r1ch wrote: post #70
ricardobeat wrote: post #65

This post would have done fine without the whole “we do not approve” / “we need to take them down” attitude. Call it a terrible idea, explain why, recommend against it, and be done with it; one shouldn’t need approval to maintain a fork, and they are not misrepresenting what it is. I find the animosity a little off-putting.

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be confused into thinking it's something officially supported and clog up official support channels with unrelated issues.

Maintainer of the Alpine package you referenced here. I'm not a "them". ;)

I don't see where "Alpine" is used in the package name, unless you're referring to the source repository name. In case it isn't clear, `alpine-pkg-` is a prefix which denotes that the repository contains an Alpine Linux package manifest and configuration. There's nothing in the repo itself which states that this package is published and/or endorsed by Alpine Linux.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#124

Post by sgerrand »

lalaithio-glibc wrote: post #108
lalaithion wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason to have the "we need to take them down" attitude would be if they are violating your license or glibc's license.

Using the same name can also be considered inapproriate.

Maintainer of the Alpine package referenced here. The same name for what? The package name is `glibc`. I think you're confusing/conflating the source control repository's name with the package when they are different things.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#125

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

ekimekim wrote: post #84
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #63

If you want glibc, why use Alpine? Mainstream distributions are for glibc. Alpine exists specifically as a musl-based thing.

I want to use alpine for my containers because it's a minimalist distro with a nice package manager with up-to-date packages. Reasons I don't like common alternatives: * ubuntu - Increasingly hostile to container usage (I tried to install a package recently, the install "succeeded" but at runtime the installed binary simply printed 'oh actually this is a stub, use snap instead' and exited), along with all the other d…

Have you ever heard of Fedora? They have a base container image.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#126

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

ekimekim wrote: post #84
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #63

If you want glibc, why use Alpine? Mainstream distributions are for glibc. Alpine exists specifically as a musl-based thing.

I want to use alpine for my containers because it's a minimalist distro with a nice package manager with up-to-date packages. Reasons I don't like common alternatives: * ubuntu - Increasingly hostile to container usage (I tried to install a package recently, the install "succeeded" but at runtime the installed binary simply printed 'oh actually this is a stub, use snap instead' and exited), along with all the other d…

> ubuntu - Increasingly hostile to container usage (I tried to install a package recently, the install "succeeded" but at runtime the installed binary simply printed 'oh actually this is a stub, use snap instead' and exited)

Was it chromium?

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#127

Post by gnud »

sgerrand wrote: post #123
r1ch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be confused into thinking it's something officially supported and clog up official support channels with unrelated issues.

Maintainer of the Alpine package you referenced here. I'm not a "them". ;) I don't see where "Alpine" is used in the package name, unless you're referring to the source repository name. In case it isn't clear, `alpine-pkg-` is a prefix which denotes that the repository contains an Alpine Linux package manifest and configuration. There's nothing in the repo itself which states that this package is published and/or end…

I think they're talking about things like https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc or https://hub.docker.com/r/jeanblanchard/alpine-glibc

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#128

Post by sgerrand »

dbt00 wrote: post #2

I've definitely had my share of annoyances with musl-libc and would probably consider building my base images around distroless if that were something I were dealing with right now. In the meantime, it's kinda shitty of someone to casually squat on the alpine linux namespace. If you want to make a small distribution that also ships glibc, then it's not alpine. Don't call it that.

Maintainer of the Alpine package referenced here. It's called `glibc`, makes no claims on Alpine Linux and certainly isn't a Linux distribution. You install the package in Alpine Linux, nothing else.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#129

Post by akerl_ »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #78
ariadneconill wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am proposing that we encode something that is already factually accurate: glibc and musl generally do not mix in any way that results in a stable system. Do you not think that distributions should make even a little bit of effort to introduce friction toward scenarios known to break systems? If apk-tools had a soft conflict option, where it printed a warning and required the user to acknowledge that warning somehow…

alpine exists in the open source space and must behave like an open source project. You don't get to tell your users how to use your project. That is the entire fucking point of open source software.

As visible upthread, I think starting w/ the block in code is a bad move, and am sad that reaching out to the maintainer of alpine-glibc seems like an afterthought.

That said, there is not a universal mandate for how an open source project “must behave”, other than that the terms of the license (which the authors of the code are able to choose). There isn’t a single cohesive “entire fucking point” of open source. The things proposed in the blog post are permissible under the license, are able to be bypassed by the user, and are not some earthshattering affront to human decency.

We should be able to disagree about the best course of action without falling into incendiary accusations.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#130

Post by deadbunny »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #114
dralley wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. This entire post is about how there isn't a solution to that problem. It's a fundamentally flawed idea.

The solution is to seperate the branding from the idea. There is no way for somebody to suggest in the name of their product that they are a downstream of alpine without using the word alpine. alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever

> alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever

Why is it on the Alpine Devs to name a downstream project? Would you ask the Debian devs to name Ubuntu?

Post reply on HN