ko VS pacoloco

Apko leverages the APK package format from Alpine and draws inspiration from ko, a fast container image builder for Go applications.

- There're many resources available about containerizing an application, but I suggest you buildpacks or ko, which doesn't require writing a Dockerfile

ko

You don't need to write and manage Dockerfiles. Simply just use ko: https://github.com/google/ko (You also don't need Docker Engine)

Or don't write a Dockerfile at all, and use ko: https://github.com/google/ko

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "ko"

Pretty much any tool works: docker, podman, kaniko, crane(if you're brave), ko... list goes on.

If you're using Go, I recommend https://github.com/google/ko (shameless plug), or for Java, use Jib.

I would recommend Google Ko if you are packaging Go apps: https://github.com/google/ko

Shameless plug for ko: https://github.com/google/ko

Then there's no man page, and the info available on https://github.com/anatol/pacoloco was confusing to me as well. I think there may be a language interpenetration related barrier at play here.

The PKGBUILD simply copies the upstream sample config to the install location. This is general Arch policy -- make minimal changes to what upstream ships.

If you have multiple systems, take a look at pacoloco. It won't save you from having to download the updates once, but after you update one computer, the others sharing the same packages can download from the cache. If you have numerous machines running arch, this will save you a LOT of bandwidth.

Pacoloco project uses simple and nice way to build images from scratch. See it here https://github.com/anatol/pacoloco/blob/master/Dockerfile

Parallel download would especially help people who have multiple repos with different speed. e.g. some part of packages is cached locally with pacoloco while other packages need to be fetched via slow high-latency connection.