Skip to content

Conversation

@clbarnes
Copy link
Contributor

@clbarnes clbarnes commented Dec 16, 2020

N.B. this includes the changes from #98

I was having problems with dependencies on my system, so here's a first attempt at a docker file for this repo's environment. See #72 . I also have a local branch which uses docker for all of the make recipes.

The references don't seem to work at the moment.

- Remove tabs causing misalignment
- Remove meaningless whitespace which make editing more difficult
@dendrondal
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi Chris, thanks for this! So, #96 addresses this, albeit in a different way. I really like the idea of having a make docker command for pulling from dockerhub. The major difference is the existence of an entrypoint and the base image used, from what I can see. I'd appreciate your input on that PR. That also has travis builds which include the container, and relevant documentation for the end-user. I'd definitely like the final result to be a combination of these two.

@clbarnes
Copy link
Contributor Author

So, #96 addresses this

Yes, I should have looked into it further!

IMO pandoc is the primary thrust of this repo, so it made sense to me to base this build on the official pandoc+latex image from pandoc (although it should be on a tagged release rather than the implicit latest). This image inherits its entrypoint from the base image: pandoc. I think this makes more sense than using make as the entrypoint because some make recipes won't really make sense inside the docker container (like building a docker image!). My branch which uses docker in the makefile just defines a variable for a docker command and then replaces the word pandoc in the recipes with $(DOCKER_CMD).

It may not be worth uploading our image to dockerhub (although of course that could be a CI action): it takes a few minutes to build the first time you use it but after that it's free.

Really, though, they're very similar.

@dendrondal
Copy link
Collaborator

Apologies for the delay, I've just been away from open source for awhile, it's been a crazy few weeks! I'm wanting to merge both this and #100 in the near future, and merging my documentation and table changes later (I strongly prefer your Docker implementation, so I'm going to scrap mine). That being said, do you mind adding a Docker service and relevant commands to the travis.yml?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants