Hacker News Reader

Until there is a critical vulnerability in one of the components present on that image (system packages or application packages).

View on HN

This is why I haven't adopted the practice of "Build your artifact along with the docker image that packages it".

Instead, build your artifact and publish it to an artifact repository, just like we used to.

_then_ wrap that artifact in a Docker image.

Vulnerability found in the docker image? No problem. Build a new image with the same artifact.

I'm curious why you're being downvoted for this. Whoever disagrees, please share some context.

What you said about "wrapping" I interpret as: based on an image for instance with OS level dependencies you create another image with application level artifacts, e.g. a python application. When your app changes, you don't build the base image again, you only build the app image. This makes sense to me.

At that point you're not repeating a build. You're building a new image.

From that point on, the build may become "fully unrepeatable" because previous steps may have reused cached stuff that can no longer be reproduced.

You could break the build simply by cleaning some things from the cache, without changing the Dockerfile, even thought that Dockerfile "succeeded to build"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com