MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGFcrM=KPg5AZie-ux055SVAZu08EmSJ3s-Q_Map5j5CmGaaKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220621095653.71773d59@ncopa-desktop.lan> <YrGEhsJi+AJ+eUVx@codewreck.org>
In-Reply-To: <YrGEhsJi+AJ+eUVx@codewreck.org>
From: Tomas Kolda <koldat@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:54:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGFcrM=RUOpE+NfBS0k-My-Sk81okHJHBF0cnO4Z9_VLzuyYeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Native Alpine GLibc support (NEW)
To: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=C3=BAt 21. 6. 2022 v 10:43 odes=C3=ADlatel Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@codewreck.org> napsal:
>
> (With that said, I agree improving musl might be better, but.. any
> reason to stick to alpine for this particular usecase? I don't know what
> you need to rebuild your JNI dependencies but it might be even less work
> to slim down another distro's container)
>
We are using Redhat UBI minimal 8 as well. But there is so many
packages with many vulnerabilities so security scans are showing many
issues. Even if it is sometimes false positives it still does not look
good to customers.

I tried many distros, but Alpine install to different root (-p
/newroot) allows me to have just a tiny bit of packages (only what I
need) with zero issues.

So yes we can do that. I just like the simplicity that is already available=
.