I have read https://www.packer.io/docs/builders/docker.html, but I do not see the advantage of using Packer over docker build or docker-compose up --build for building docker images
6
- Just because moving from docker image to AWS ami or any other provider type of image is just a matter of changing the provider ?Tensibai– Tensibai2017-09-08 12:09:33 +00:00Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:09
- 1I'm tempted to close this one as duplicate of your other question as the answer I provided there does answer this question also.Tensibai– Tensibai2017-09-08 12:12:42 +00:00Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:12
- Agreed. Perhaps you could transform the comment to an answer for clarity.030– 0302017-09-08 12:26:09 +00:00Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:26
- 1Edited the answer on the other post so the information is not scattered on two posts.Tensibai– Tensibai2017-09-08 12:32:58 +00:00Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:32
- 1Well, the omission of dockerfiles is exactly what I state by changing provider, your describe the content of your image whatever the image is. But I've reopen to let others bring more details if needed. I'll add as an answer my comment above also.Tensibai– Tensibai2017-09-08 12:51:37 +00:00Commented Sep 8, 2017 at 12:51
| Show 1 more comment
1 Answer
Mainly the reason is to keep your image building steps intact if you get to move from docker to another image building system.
Packer does support a bunch of providers (builders in packer terminology), and changing the target "container" is just a matter of changing the builder (or using multiple builders in the same packer file), the build steps (provisionner step) are kept intact and will be the same if you build a docker image or an AWS ami for example (you can even build both at the same time).
