apko VS cargo-chef

apko allows us to build OCI container images from .apk packages.

We have built something very similar to what you are describing: https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko

apko

Chainguard also appears to have several open source projects.The most popular one is apko, used for building OCI images from APK packages.

Once those are done, I just need to build aws-cli package, put those APK files in a final image with Chainguard's apko.

This is one of my absolute favorite topics. Pardon me while I rant and self-promote :D

Dockerfiles are great for flexibility, and have been a critical contributor to the adoption of Docker containers. It's very easy to take a base image, add a thing to it, and publish your version.

Unfortunately Dockerfiles are also full of gotchas and opaque cargo-culted best practices to avoid them. Being an open-ended execution environment, it's basically impossible to tell even during the build what's being added to the image, which has downstream implications for anybody trying to get an SBOM from the image for example.

Instead, I contribute to a number of tools to build and manage images without Dockerfiles. Each of them are less featureful than Dockerfiles, but being more constrained in what they can do, you can get a lot more visibility into what they're doing, since they're not able to do "whatever the user wants".

1. https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry is a Go module to interact with images in the registry and in tarballs and layouts, in the local docker daemon. You can append layers, squash layers, modify metadata, etc.

2. crane is a CLI that uses the above (in the same repo) to make many of the same modifications from the commandline. `crane append` for instance adds a layer containing some contents to an image, entirely in the registry, without even pulling the base image.

3. ko (https://ko.build) is a tool to build Go applications into images without Dockerfiles or Docker at all. It runs `go build`, appends that binary on top of a base image, and pushes it directly to the registry. It generates an SBOM declaring what Go modules went into the app it put into the image, since that's all it can do.

4. apko (https://apko.dev) is a tool to assemble an image from pre-built apks, without Docker. It's capable of producing "distroless" images easily with config in YAML. It generates an SBOM declaring exactly what apks it put in the image, since that's all it can do.

Bazel's rules_docker is another contender in the space, and GCP's distroless images use it to place Debian .debs into an image. Apko is its spiritual successor, and uses YAML instead of Bazel's own config language, which makes it a lot easier to adopt and use (IMO), with all of the same benefits.

I'm excited to see more folks realizing that Dockerfiles aren't always necessary, and can sometimes make your life harder. I'm extra excited to see more tools and tutorials digging into the details of how container images work, and preaching the gospel that they can be built and modified using existing tooling and relatively simple libraries. Excellent article!

Depends exactly what you're trying to create it for. I advocate for doing it during the build process rather than as a step after.

We open sourced a few tools that do it automatically for containers:

https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko

https://github.com/chainguard-dev/melange

apko takes apk packages and builds them into OCI images (aka Docker images). Sounds quite simple, because it is:

CI time. Do you want to micromanage your own docker images for all your CI? Great! If not, yes you do. In fact, you want to manage a docker image to build a docker image to use for CI. Use cargo-chef to prepare a build image with your dependencies pre-built if you want to do fine-grained build/test pipelines. Oh also, there's no jUnit test report generation, that was killed off today. (YES, SORRY, I'm still salty.)

Have you looked at cargo-chef? It supposedly speeds up compilation times if you're using Docker.

A tool already exists for this called Cargo-chef, and it works extremely well.

At work I've use Dockerfile and cargo-chef to improve build times. You can also look into buildkit cache mounts, but this approach is rarely super effective on hosted CI because they start from scratch on most runs. In the context of Rust specifically you may also see the target directory reflect unbounded data growth if it's reused over and over across revisions. because cargo by default won't expire older intermediate artifacts. Cargo-sweep can help with that but I wouldn't pursue this in a CI effort. This will affect both "native" builds and buildkit cache mounts if you're persisting the target directory.

We create an empty Rust binary with cargo new, this is a simple way to get Docker layer caching to work. For a more robust solution, you may want to check out cargo-chef.

If this ends up being a cleaner/easier way to having to workaround super expensive rebuilds for Rust given cache + deps compared to this https://github.com/LukeMathWalker/cargo-chef , reading this thread will have been a huge win for me (and hopefully others).

Whether introducing Bazel is easier/worth it, subjective I guess.

I did a talk (slides here) about this a few years ago, it took a bit of work to get the build caching working with cargo. As others have pointed out, there is now cargo chef to solve this problem so you probably don't have to deal with the issues I saw, but I thought it still might be helpful context.

I'm curious if you've tried out cargo-chef, I've had some decent improvements with it but I wonder how it stacks up to the sccache approach (don't have the time to try it out myself right now).

for CI have you tried to use buildkit persistent runners with caching + https://github.com/LukeMathWalker/cargo-chef ?

If you're deploying Rust with Docker I can tell you that cargo-chef is invaluable. With zero work it caches the dependency fetch and compilation steps. Most of the time the ens Docker deploy is closer to an incremental compile than full.