You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Refactor Dockerfile.git to use opensuse leap #2348
You're welcome to help. In any case you're seemed to be way more competent there ;-)
I still think Dockerfile.git serves no purpose when any consumer is most likely to git clone a branch anyway? At which point you just build the Dockerfile there.
If you don't have any known consumers of this variant, it should be fine to remove it. You can always restore it if someone later vocalizes a need for it, but if they're not cloning the repo they would have their own separate copy of Dockerfile.git and need to maintain/sync that at some interval should any changes occur...which is why they should prefer git clone/pull in the first place? 🤷♂
The remainder of my comment at that Oct 2023 issue was regarding changes to your CI workflows, I may have time in May/June as there is another project I'm looking into contributing similar workflow improvements for I could tackle a PR for testssl with similar improvements :)
You might also want to setup a testssl account at DockerHub? (before someone else might)
If you've not done so, you could also apply for the OSS tier their for that account linked to this GH org. I haven't done that myself but another maintainer does that with docker-mailserver, which I think requires annual renewal but is otherwise free. Only really needed if you're hitting limits of the free tier though.
If you don't have any known consumers of this variant, it should be fine to remove it.
I created a PR having the GH action pointing to the regular Dockerfile and see whether it works. @jauderho : As you created the GH action was there a reason why you wanted to have a separate Dockerfile ?
I believe it was used to track different builds but since it appears that you have chosen to go in a different direction with the opensuse builds, it does not matter to me if these stay around.
I have my own builds that remain on alpine that work for me. Personally, I would have liked to see the alpine builds be fixed instead of switching OS distress. FWIW, I believe the original issue is no longer a problem IIRC.
Probably I can't transfer the statics (?) . Now the badge say 651k pulls, would be a pity to loose that.
Not that I'm aware of, docker-mailserver lost that too (50M+ pulls) when moving from the original author account to the organization one.
Personally, I would have liked to see the alpine builds be fixed instead of switching OS distress.
It shouldn't be much trouble to support both bases with an -alpine tag for the alpine variant.
FWIW, I believe the original issue is no longer a problem IIRC.
IIRC there were a few issues with alpine:
DNS resolution (A + AAAA queried at the same time? Possibly something with lack of nsswitch.conf). Historically Alpine had various other issues with networking IIRC, but quite a few have been addressed over the years.
EDIT: Oh wait no it was due to a version of OpenSSL (glibc compiled) that gets copied into the image for testing old versions of SSL/TLS, which you can't properly build statically with the DNS related calls, so it failed on Alpine/musl.
Performance was notably worse on musl vs glibc distros. That may have changed since, but musl is known to perform poorly due to it's default memory allocator and possibly some other concerns which can be observed with Rust and Python still AFAIK.
Activity
polarathene commentedon Apr 24, 2025
Was closing this issue intentional? Is my Oct 2023 issue referencing this one the new tracking issue?
Dockerfile.gitis stillalpineon the 3.2 branch, and your workflow still builds this for publishing to GHCR specifically.drwetter commentedon Apr 24, 2025
Hi @polarathene ,
yes, this should be handled via the issue you filed. Was just a cleanup measure.
You're welcome to help. In any case you're seemed to be way more competent there ;-)
polarathene commentedon Apr 24, 2025
I still think
Dockerfile.gitserves no purpose when any consumer is most likely to git clone a branch anyway? At which point you just build theDockerfilethere.If you don't have any known consumers of this variant, it should be fine to remove it. You can always restore it if someone later vocalizes a need for it, but if they're not cloning the repo they would have their own separate copy of
Dockerfile.gitand need to maintain/sync that at some interval should any changes occur...which is why they should prefer git clone/pull in the first place? 🤷♂The remainder of my comment at that Oct 2023 issue was regarding changes to your CI workflows, I may have time in May/June as there is another project I'm looking into contributing similar workflow improvements for I could tackle a PR for testssl with similar improvements :)
polarathene commentedon Apr 24, 2025
You might also want to setup a
testsslaccount at DockerHub? (before someone else might)If you've not done so, you could also apply for the OSS tier their for that account linked to this GH org. I haven't done that myself but another maintainer does that with
docker-mailserver, which I think requires annual renewal but is otherwise free. Only really needed if you're hitting limits of the free tier though.Trying to use the regular Dockerfile ....
drwetter commentedon Apr 25, 2025
Thanks for the hint! As a first action: Done. I only now have to figure out how to set up that thing. The UI wasn't that intuitive.
I am paying out of my own pocket for provising the image via the old URL https://hub.docker.com/r/drwetter/testssl.sh since it wasn't free anymore. Didn't know that there is free OSS tier, thanks for the hint!
Probably I can't transfer the statics (?) . Now the badge say 651k pulls, would be a pity to loose that.
drwetter commentedon Apr 25, 2025
I created a PR having the GH action pointing to the regular Dockerfile and see whether it works. @jauderho : As you created the GH action was there a reason why you wanted to have a separate Dockerfile ?
If it works, I'll remove ``Dockefile.git`
jauderho commentedon Apr 25, 2025
I believe it was used to track different builds but since it appears that you have chosen to go in a different direction with the opensuse builds, it does not matter to me if these stay around.
I have my own builds that remain on alpine that work for me. Personally, I would have liked to see the alpine builds be fixed instead of switching OS distress. FWIW, I believe the original issue is no longer a problem IIRC.
polarathene commentedon Apr 25, 2025
Not that I'm aware of,
docker-mailserverlost that too (50M+ pulls) when moving from the original author account to the organization one.It shouldn't be much trouble to support both bases with an
-alpinetag for the alpine variant.IIRC there were a few issues with alpine:
A+AAAAqueried at the same time? Possibly something with lack ofnsswitch.conf). Historically Alpine had various other issues with networking IIRC, but quite a few have been addressed over the years.