-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 849
Closed
Description
In the same sense that we separate binaries based on architecture, shouldn't we separate them based on whether they are built by a docker image?
When I built my first docker-based executable, it landed in a directory like this:
Linking .stack-work/dist/x86_64-linux/Cabal-1.18.1.5/build/docker-hello-world/docker-hello-world ...
.stack-work/install/x86_64-linux/lts-2.22/7.8.4.20141229/bin/
Installing executable(s) in
/tmp/docker_hello_world/.stack-work/install/x86_64-linux/lts-2.22/7.8.4.20141229/bin
This happens to be a different directory than if I build without docker, but only because the GHC version happens to be 7.8.4.20141229
.
The above path doesn't give an indication that it was built for docker and in fact may not run at all on the host platform! (It may depend on dynamic libraries inside the docker image the selected, right?) And in principle the GHC version used in the docker build could be the same as in the non-docker build causing these two different kinds of files to collide, no?