pack VS pacoloco

I've recently found this quote by Kelsey Hightower:

"I'm convinced the majority of people managing infrastructure just want a PaaS. The only requirement: it has to be built by them."

Source: https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/85193508753294540...

In the last few weeks, I've experimented a bit with Flux (https://fluxcd.io/), Tekton (https://tekton.dev/) and Cloud Native Buildpacks (https://buildpacks.io/) on how to provide K8s powered git push deployments without using a dedicated CI/CD server.

My project is still in early alpha stage and just a proof of concept :-) My vision is to expand it into an Open Source PaaS in the future.

Do you think the above quote is true? What does an open source PaaS need to be like in order to be accepted by software developers?

Some other projects have been discontinued in the past (like Flynn or Deis) or were created before the Kubernetes era.

Is it the right direction to provide a Heroku like solution based on K8s or is it better to provide an Open Source Infrastructure as Code library with building blocks to avoid everything from scratch?

```bash (curl -sSL "https://github.com/buildpacks/pack/releases/download/v0.28.0/pack-v0.28.0-linux-arm64.tgz" | sudo tar -C /usr/local/bin/ --no-same-owner -xzv pack)

Although Dockerfiles have the benefit of migrating existing workloads to containers without having to update your toolchain, I definitely prefer the container-first workflow. Cloud Native [Buildpacks](https://buildpacks.io/) are a CNCF incubating project but were proven at Heroku. Buildpacks support common languages, but working on a Go project I've also had a great experience with [ko](https://ko.build/). Free yourself from Dockerfile!

Cloud Native Buildpacks

It's big and overwhelming and sometimes scary. But you know what? It's also fun, engaging, and very refreshing. Because I'm a DevRel, I don't have many chances to focus on something particular. Still, I'm having a lot of fun exploring different CMSs (like Statamic, Craft, or Sanity), new approaches (at last, I understood why the headless approach is so important), and diving into tech I never used before (hello Buildpacks).

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.

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.

Hello, I've just been trying to get pacoloco installed and running on my network, and I seem to have it working with more or less the defaults, but i'm confused about one thing.

The much simpler solution is if you want to save bandwidth, for example if you are installing Arch on a bunch of machines is to either create your own Arch install on removable media (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Install_Arch_Linux_on_a_removable_medium) with a local repository with the packages you want (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pacman/Tips_and_tricks) or a networked shared pacman cache. I like pacoloco (https://github.com/anatol/pacoloco), but there are others.

Pacoloco https://github.com/anatol/pacoloco might be useful for you

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

Try https://github.com/anatol/pacoloco pacman cache server and see if you still have these errors. I pretty much sure pacoloco works at RPi.

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.