• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago
      docker build . -t docker.company.com/build-env:1.0 && docker push docker.company.com/build-env:1.0
      

      But for like 99% of development teams “repeatable” is Good Enough™.

      • trevor (he/they)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        So, containers do not get you reproducibility.

        For dev environments, repeatable is okay. If you want actually reproducible binaries that you can ship, Nix is better fit for that purpose.

        • gedhrel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I’m not quite sure why you fetishise a bit-for-bit over semantic equivalence. Doesn’t it turn “it works on my machine” into "it works on my machine as long as it has this sha: … "?

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          So, containers do not get you reproducibility.

          You absolutely do. If you build a container and publish it you will pull down that exact thing every time. How is that not “reproducibility”?

          You no what though? Scratch that - who gives a fuck? Bit-for-bit reproducibility takes far more effort than it’s worth anyway. Even NixOS isn’t completely reproducible. It’s a false goal.

          For dev environments, repeatable is okay.

          It’s well more than good enough you mean.

          If you want actually reproducible binaries that you can ship, Nix is better fit for that purpose.

          Nobody really needs that.