djoka/searxng
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
879ac4e60f14a30cddd61e024ed4ad93179bb9d6
searxng/container/base-builder.yml

28 lines
526 B
YAML
Raw Normal View History

[mod] container: build custom base images (#4799) Instead of using Wolfi base images from cgr.dev and making that mess on the Dockerfile, why don't we build the base images ourselves from Wolfi repos with apko? The intention of this is to simplify the main Dockerfile and avoid having to patch the base image every time, it also simplifies some steps like image ownership management and provides extremely fast builds.
2025-05-17 18:21:04 +02:00
contents:
repositories:
[mod] container: revert to alpine (#4893) I'm not too pleased to reverse this, but issues like https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 have not been foreseen, and we can't just turn away. It has become apparent over the last weeks that there are still quite a few people with an incompatible CPU or having SearXNG on some random VM provider who can't (or won't) modify the configuration of their machines to expose the features needed for x86_64v2 march. As I don't want to trash the work with apko and base images, I thought about trying building Alpine again now that we have all the container related workflow refactored. There will still be the discussion of whether to use musl and its drawbacks, but right now I don't know any other alternatives. The nice part of this is that both Dockerfiles (mainline and legacy) can now be unified under the same umbrella again. Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4753
2025-06-03 21:24:47 +02:00
- https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/alpine/edge/main
- https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/alpine/edge/community
[mod] container: build custom base images (#4799) Instead of using Wolfi base images from cgr.dev and making that mess on the Dockerfile, why don't we build the base images ourselves from Wolfi repos with apko? The intention of this is to simplify the main Dockerfile and avoid having to patch the base image every time, it also simplifies some steps like image ownership management and provides extremely fast builds.
2025-05-17 18:21:04 +02:00
packages:
[mod] container: revert to alpine (#4893) I'm not too pleased to reverse this, but issues like https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 have not been foreseen, and we can't just turn away. It has become apparent over the last weeks that there are still quite a few people with an incompatible CPU or having SearXNG on some random VM provider who can't (or won't) modify the configuration of their machines to expose the features needed for x86_64v2 march. As I don't want to trash the work with apko and base images, I thought about trying building Alpine again now that we have all the container related workflow refactored. There will still be the discussion of whether to use musl and its drawbacks, but right now I don't know any other alternatives. The nice part of this is that both Dockerfiles (mainline and legacy) can now be unified under the same umbrella again. Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4753
2025-06-03 21:24:47 +02:00
- alpine-base
[mod] container: build custom base images (#4799) Instead of using Wolfi base images from cgr.dev and making that mess on the Dockerfile, why don't we build the base images ourselves from Wolfi repos with apko? The intention of this is to simplify the main Dockerfile and avoid having to patch the base image every time, it also simplifies some steps like image ownership management and provides extremely fast builds.
2025-05-17 18:21:04 +02:00
- build-base
[mod] container: revert to alpine (#4893) I'm not too pleased to reverse this, but issues like https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 have not been foreseen, and we can't just turn away. It has become apparent over the last weeks that there are still quite a few people with an incompatible CPU or having SearXNG on some random VM provider who can't (or won't) modify the configuration of their machines to expose the features needed for x86_64v2 march. As I don't want to trash the work with apko and base images, I thought about trying building Alpine again now that we have all the container related workflow refactored. There will still be the discussion of whether to use musl and its drawbacks, but right now I don't know any other alternatives. The nice part of this is that both Dockerfiles (mainline and legacy) can now be unified under the same umbrella again. Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4753
2025-06-03 21:24:47 +02:00
- python3-dev
[mod] container: build custom base images (#4799) Instead of using Wolfi base images from cgr.dev and making that mess on the Dockerfile, why don't we build the base images ourselves from Wolfi repos with apko? The intention of this is to simplify the main Dockerfile and avoid having to patch the base image every time, it also simplifies some steps like image ownership management and provides extremely fast builds.
2025-05-17 18:21:04 +02:00
- py3-pip
- brotli
[mod] container: revert to alpine (#4893) I'm not too pleased to reverse this, but issues like https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 have not been foreseen, and we can't just turn away. It has become apparent over the last weeks that there are still quite a few people with an incompatible CPU or having SearXNG on some random VM provider who can't (or won't) modify the configuration of their machines to expose the features needed for x86_64v2 march. As I don't want to trash the work with apko and base images, I thought about trying building Alpine again now that we have all the container related workflow refactored. There will still be the discussion of whether to use musl and its drawbacks, but right now I don't know any other alternatives. The nice part of this is that both Dockerfiles (mainline and legacy) can now be unified under the same umbrella again. Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4753
2025-06-03 21:24:47 +02:00
# uwsgi
- libffi-dev
[mod] container: build custom base images (#4799) Instead of using Wolfi base images from cgr.dev and making that mess on the Dockerfile, why don't we build the base images ourselves from Wolfi repos with apko? The intention of this is to simplify the main Dockerfile and avoid having to patch the base image every time, it also simplifies some steps like image ownership management and provides extremely fast builds.
2025-05-17 18:21:04 +02:00
entrypoint:
command: /bin/sh -l
work-dir: /usr/local/searxng/
environment:
PATH: /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin
SSL_CERT_FILE: /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt
HISTFILE: /dev/null
archs:
- x86_64
- aarch64
[mod] container: revert to alpine (#4893) I'm not too pleased to reverse this, but issues like https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 have not been foreseen, and we can't just turn away. It has become apparent over the last weeks that there are still quite a few people with an incompatible CPU or having SearXNG on some random VM provider who can't (or won't) modify the configuration of their machines to expose the features needed for x86_64v2 march. As I don't want to trash the work with apko and base images, I thought about trying building Alpine again now that we have all the container related workflow refactored. There will still be the discussion of whether to use musl and its drawbacks, but right now I don't know any other alternatives. The nice part of this is that both Dockerfiles (mainline and legacy) can now be unified under the same umbrella again. Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4792 Closes https://github.com/searxng/searxng/issues/4753
2025-06-03 21:24:47 +02:00
- armv7
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink