Contributors mailing list archives


Re: Docker for OCA/OCB

Narayana Moturi
- 20/10/2015 12:57:07
+1 Florent. We have been using xcgd/odoo docker images with our custom add-ons in production for couple of our customers and so far so good. I'd agree with Florent if both have a common recipe with multiple source options either by OCB or base images.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Florent Aide <> wrote:
Hi all,

We would gladly share and maintain our recipe with / in OCA.
We would even be willing to migrate to an oca account on dockerhub...

But we would much prefer to be authors and steering than spectators. I think the size issue you cite can be solved and we have many ideas how to layer our images in mini base images + specialized images to allow reducing bloat.

Take into account that the image size depends on the history of your layers and our images has been around for a long time... and has seen many improvements. If we rebuild and reupload on a new image into an oca docker hub account it will be smaller.

If we use such an account we will be able to obtain the "official" stamp from the docker team. That could be a good marketing move.

All this to say:

I propose we give our recipe and make it use ocb instead of vanilla (one line change), "cleaned-up" & "optimized", if you want to gain space in your image you could remove py3o.template from the base images :)

I propose Elico works with us to make sure their requirements are met and we co-maintain the result and share the maintenance burden.

Doing so would make sure all the fixes have incoming land up in the oca recipe (ie: dpkp -i for wkhtml is not good enough and breaks footers):


2015-10-20 11:53 GMT+02:00 Eric Caudal <>:

Hi Alexandre,
Yes that is true and we have pending adding the credit of xcgd (we are still with a lot of WIP here).

We split because originally in China we could make xcgd work properly as is due to the fact that pip install was timing out. Now we do not have the issue anymore because we build in and mirror to China.
Nevertheless the main reason to fork was  XCGD bin and Odoo are stored in their servers whereas in our case, we use official pip + OCB github code. Size matters as well: we have optimized the size at a little bit less than a Gb when AFAIR their docker is almost 2 Gb. This is important to us where bandwidth is a huge constraint

Last but not least we will push soon a powerful mechanism based on oca_dependencies.txt file that will all to pull directly dependencies from github.

So yes we started our work based on XCGD (sorry again for the missing credits) but diverged in the approach, objectives and used sources.

Anyway, my original mail was actually to leverage an effort from the community and having XCGD on board would be helpful even if options taken might be discussed altogether for the particular case of OCA.

My original objective was to build a simple and easy to use docker file for quick and up-to-date deployment for OCB but with XCGD's team, it might become even easier.



  Florent AIDE
  Président directeur général
  59 rue Meslay, 75003 Paris
  Tél: +33 1 83 62 72 87
  Mob : +33 6 59 14 19 76                                     

Post to: