Docker Image

[ghost]

I think it would be so cool (as well as beneficial) if a docker image of this OS was published for developers to use.
I'm curious to hear the pros and cons as well as what would be required to do so.

[ivandavidov]

The MLL build process already generates a Docker compatible container layout that can be used as a base image. If you exclude all default overlay bundles and include only the glibc_full overlay bundle, the result MLL container layout won't be that different from the Docker's default Busybox images.

From nowadays perspective, the fact that MLL has smaller GLIBC footprint, therefore the final MLL image will also be smaller, is insignificant. I think most users would like to stick to the core community builds and use the Busybox image, rather than a third-party optimized image like MLL's variation of Busybox.

Of course, people with specific software needs could use the MLL build system to optimize their software and include only the parts they actually need in their own image. However, these users are very strong power users and I'm sure they are well aware of the pros and cons of building their own image, compared to the well tested community images from the mainstream.

In the end, I believe it's a community choice. The MLL build process provides this feature and it's up to community whether to use it or not.

I'm open for suggestions how to make this feature more popular and community friendly. :)

[ghost]

Well, I think the starting point would be going off of why people would choose to use this.