Instead of relying on Docker for "portability" have you ever considered just making your software actually portable?
Your codebase should be healthy enough to not rely on one specific version of Python that's been EOL for two years.
@polarisfm I appreciate docker images that are so simple that it's basically just
>the regular os packages needed
>adding the binary
But jees there are some images that are plain black magic.
It's to the point that the idea of having to replicate an install outside docker or even using another base image in docker is daunting.
@polarisfm before rejecting a patch to support an obscure OS because "it's not POSIX" you should first make sure you properly test for all those Linux-specific syscalls you use without any ifdef.
@polarisfm *side-eyes the Perl install that he dares not upgrade from 5.16.3 because of about a million lines of code written by hapless mortal lusers*
Uh, after recompiling Perl a few times to upgrade one major RHEL/CentOS version at a time (with all the backwards compatibility libraries installed on newer OS versions), I will have you know that C ABI compatibility is hell, and also that people are damned lazy about actually writing portable software.
@polarisfm +10^256 !
@polarisfm But kuberbetes... but multi service and multi versions Of one application hosted in the same server ...?
A friendly mastodon instance primarily for shitposting, gays, and the glory of the free and open source software movement.