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

181–190 of 204 posts

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

#181

Post by int_19h »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #77
captainmuon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not at all against versioning , but found glibc's implementation a source of frustration. It would be great if you could install Qt 5.9, 5.12, 1.14 in parallel and have apps use the latest version (except for that one app that triggers a bug where you fix it to 5.9). This is an actual problem that occurred at work, I had to statically compile Qt in that case. Glibc's idea of lib versions doesn't help here at all…

That’s not so much glibc’s fault, but the Unix philosophy of /lib, right? Windows’ “solution” to this is to basically require applications to provide their own runtime (such as Qt, GTK, etc.).

Windows has many solutions to this. It is entirely possible for the apps to use a shared dynamically linked runtime, and the OS provides mechanisms to have several versions installed globally side by side, loading the correct one as needed for each app.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-by-side_assembly

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

#182

Post by ariadneconill »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #159
ariadneconill wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

correct: we do not want to get stuck with having to deal with angry people who have unstable environments caused by this. and, the conflict option is one of a few options being considered. part of what lead up to this is the fact that we have not taken any public position on mixing glibc and musl runtimes until now. no decision has been made, and won't be made until the TSC meeting next week...

Can it also get brought up there that you come across as a fascist?

I was not aware that publicly setting boundaries on what is a supportable configuration and what wasn't one was somehow equivalent to white nationalist syndicalism, but thanks for letting me know.

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

#183

Post by t0mas88 »

eqvinox wrote: post #143
sgerrand wrote: post #122

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…

You have a communication issue in that people assume you're providing something Alpine "official". They have a communication issue in this escalation (TSC/Council) before trying to simply talk to you. I'm not gonna blame either of you.

The whole blog post reads a bit hot headed, even more so if this is step one instead of first reaching out to a fellow open source community member.

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

#184

Post by ariadneconill »

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…

+1 for a glibc-based Alpine-ish distribution. a few Alpine folks have made them over the years, but they never gained traction.

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

#185

Post by encryptluks2 »

linkdd wrote: post #74
encryptluks2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, of the 49,530 images that show up with several using Alpine somewhere in the name or description... you think this is a trademark violation how? Alpine is synonymous with lightweight images. Several people and vendors use it in their image names.

There is a difference between "python:3.10-alpine" and "alpine-glibc". One stands for: "we use alpine" (not a trademark violation) The other one stands for "this is alpine" (a trademark violation)

First, the repo name is alpine-pkg-glibc because it is merely a package you install on Alpine. The container name, created by a different individual is frolvlad/alpine-glibc, and they make it clear that it is based off Alpine with the glibc package installed. In fact, you can even look at the source code. This is ridiculous, and if Alpine starts going after people for using alpine in the container image name or tag then I now know what distro to avoid entirely.

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

#187

Post by encryptluks2 »

ariadneconill wrote: post #182
encryptluks2 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can it also get brought up there that you come across as a fascist?

I was not aware that publicly setting boundaries on what is a supportable configuration and what wasn't one was somehow equivalent to white nationalist syndicalism, but thanks for letting me know.

When your first reaction in all this was to figure out a way to try to block a third-party package from being installed, and then you make comments like... "we feel it appropriate to signal our position more forcefully." And then you lock comments on GitLab from people commenting..

You could have, before even writing the blog post, posted an issue on their GitHub to try seeing if they can post a more noticeable disclaimer... although it doesn't really even need one and is pretty inherent, just like all the other Docker Hub images using Alpine in their name to indicate the underlying distro.

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

#188

Post by fisherjeff »

Semi off-topic: While I like the idea of symbolic versioning in theory, in practice it has only ever caused me pain and never shown any benefit whatsoever: I really don’t care that cosf changed ever so slightly in 2.xx! Just use the cosf I have!

At the very least, a simple, non-hacky way to force that linkage would be great but I have found no such thing. Anyone here had any better luck?

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

#189

Post by fao_ »

t0mas88 wrote: post #183
eqvinox wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a communication issue in that people assume you're providing something Alpine "official". They have a communication issue in this escalation (TSC/Council) before trying to simply talk to you. I'm not gonna blame either of you.

The whole blog post reads a bit hot headed, even more so if this is step one instead of first reaching out to a fellow open source community member.

A comment you're next to written by the post author 20 minutes before you wrote this one, suggests that is not the case.

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

#190

Post by ariadneconill »

sgerrand wrote: post #138
gnud wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, thanks for the pointer. The blog post referenced the Alpine package I maintain but was obviously implicitly referencing those Docker images.

Yes, there's several of them. The problem isn't your package, but the distribution of "alpine" images that integrate the package. Those images should describe themselves more appropriately.
Post reply on HN