Re: guix pack and exposing ports

[Todor Kondić]

Thanks Edouard!

So far I'm trying to follow the route where additional things are built on top 
of the existing image. Also managed to trim the image to a very bearable ~150Mb 
once I trimmed the manifest to bare necessities.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Thursday, August 19th, 2021 at 11:40 AM, Edouard Klein <edou@rdklein.fr> 
wrote:

> Hi !
>
> From what I know, with guix pack you can only have the dependencies in
>
> the docker image, but you won't have anything to start or manage your
>
> software automatically. You need to invoke the correct command (with
>
> docker run, I believe).
>
> What you can do is create an operating-system declaration and use the
>
> guix system docker-image subcommand. Note that this is way more
>
> involved, as you need to create a shepherd service for your software.
>
> I quickly ran into docker limitations following this route, but
>
> depending on what you want to do this may be the way to go.
>
> The alternative is to use the guix pack image as the base image in a
>
> standard dockerfile.
>
> As for the size of the image, see this thread
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2021-07/msg00064.html
>
> Good luck
>
> Todor Kondić writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please bear with me since I am not that very docker savvy. As far as I 
> > understand, normally, one can expose certain ports in a docker description 
> > file. But, how to do that when using `guix pack -f docker` command where 
> > the docker recipe is hidden from the user?
> >
> > Also, I note I'm getting ~10 GiG image for a flimsy program depending on R 
> > and shiny. Somehow that doesn't feel right. :)