Rebase published CloudSDK Dockerfile and dockerhub image

[salrashid123]

The existing Dockerfile for this repo uses a base from appengine:

FROM gcr.io/google_appengine/base

Propose updating the base image to Alpine and also documenting SDK install Dockerfiles for centos/ubuntu

The changes would

• Reduce the footprint by not including appengine-specific dependencies from the existing base
• Reduce the footprint by not install all gcloud subcomponents. Instead users can extend the basic source.
• Preserve the existing volume mounts

NOTE: This image is also built automatically on push to dockerhub:

• https://hub.docker.com/r/google/cloud-sdk/

Anyone automatically downloading that image will see a new base and lack of post-base install gcloud components.

The image based on google_appengine/base will no longer get updated as latest but would remain static at the version the time of switch over is done to tag: google/cloud-sdk:appengine

Sample alpine based Dockerfile

FROM alpine
RUN apk add --update curl python bash &&  rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
ENV HOME /
RUN curl https://sdk.cloud.google.com | bash

ENV PATH /google-cloud-sdk/bin:$PATH
VOLUME ["/.config"]
CMD ["/bin/bash"]

For comparison of baseline alpine, ubuntu, centos vs pre-packaged image based on appengine:

REPOSITORY                             TAG                 IMAGE ID            CREATED             SIZE
google/cloud-sdk                       latest              a1e753da8f5b        3 weeks ago         1.143 GB
salrashid123/cloud-sdk-docker          alpine              cc66a1c1e5c4        2 weeks ago         235.5 MB
salrashid123/cloud-sdk-docker          centos              99f52928e785        2 weeks ago         411.8 MB
salrashid123/cloud-sdk-docker          ubuntu              ae332b8fe5d2        2 weeks ago         383.7 MB

The generated images for SDK 147 taken from here

I'll file a PR to update the Dockerfile in this repo to Alpine (thereby also trigger dockerhub rebuild) as well as document the centos/ubuntu Dockerfiles. Will submit PR on 5/15

Pls chime in if there are objections.

[jeffkpayne]

Is there an ETA for this change? Also, same question for #38

Would love to be able to reference the proposed ubuntu tag now and avoid broken images later. Thanks!

[salrashid123]

@jeffkpayne

hi- We've change it a bit but on the PR here: #68

We're not making a tagged image of ubuntu by itself on dockerhub.

The debian and centOS dockerfiles will just exist in the repos as reference (as said, we could create a trigger to build :debain or :centos always at the latest )

What docker.io/google/cloud-sdk-docker will have is the Alpine version thats tagged to a version
i.e :154.0.0 :155.0.0, etc

here's the branch we've been working off of if you want a preview now

• https://github.com/salrashid123/cloud-sdk-docker-1/tree/add-rebased-image

as for ETA, its almost final so O(days) (next week sometime), hopes

[Ghazgkull]

We use the cloud-sdk image as the base for our CI build, which creates our own images and pushes them to GCR. Our builds are all broken by this change because apt-get is no longer available. We tried recovering by pinning the cloud-sdk image, but there are no tags for this image on docker hub.

So I'm wondering:

1. How can consumers who rely on the underlying image recover? Are there really no tags available with the previous OS?
2. How can we avoid getting broken like this in the future? Are breaking changes to this image announced to consumers in some way?
3. Are we mis-using this image? As a GKE shop, this image seemed like the natural base for building our own images and pushing to GCR (using gcloud docker).

[ahmetb]

@Ghazgkull Sorry about this. We just made a breaking change the other day to create a smaller image and this broke many people. We're rollong that back.

To prevent such issues, we're finally starting to tag images and we won't be updating existing tags in a breaking way once they are pushed out. You should be able to use images with tags soon.

1. We have a fix in Update base image to Debian; all components #78, you can grab the Dockerfile temporarily from there. Alternatively, you can

2. We announced the breaking change from README.md (and had this issue open) for a couple of months, however we don't have a good way of sending notices out to users.

3. I am not familiar with how you are using this image. We mostly provide this inage for people to call gcloud entrypoint and not rely on the base OS image contents.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. I expect the dust will settle and things will get more stable soon.

[jeffkpayne]

Thank you for tagging images going forward! Good to hear.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, 11:17 AM Ahmet Alp Balkan ***@***.***> wrote: @Ghazgkull <https://github.com/ghazgkull> Sorry about this. We just made a breaking change the other day to create a smaller image and this broke many people. We're rollong that back. To prevent such issues, we're finally starting to tag images and we won't be updating existing tags in a breaking way once they are pushed out. You should be able to use images with tags soon. 1. We have a fix in #78 <#78>, you can grab the Dockerfile temporarily from there. Alternatively, you can 2. We announced the breaking change from README.md (and had this issue open) for a couple of months, however we don't have a good way of sending notices out to users. 3. I am not familiar with how you are using this image. We mostly provide this inage for people to call gcloud entrypoint and not rely on the base OS image contents. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. I expect the dust will settle and things will get more stable soon. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#58 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACoMcUW31o5kvgoPF6x_maz-ZtwXAnTks5sGAykgaJpZM4M-AXN> .

-- Jeff Payne jeffkpayne@gmail.com 916-273-0938

[pboothe]

We, like @Ghazgkull , are using this image as a base image in a dockerfile (example Dockerfile is here: https://github.com/m-lab/scraper/blob/master/Dockerfile ) for code that uses Google cloud stuff. Is this image not designed for that? Is there another image we should be using or should we be rollling our own? We just got our build broken twice by the switch - once when it rolled out, and once when your rollback rolled out - and we'd like to avoid that in the future.

[salrashid123]

rebased complete w/ tagged version. pls see readme and dockerhub images