Clicked through to the buildpack docs and couldn't figure out: how do I specify that I need the `foo` binary available? At version x.y.z? The gnu version not bsd?
This seems like it takes something simple and makes it much more complicated with the aim of making it simple and then fails on all counts. For example, how is this different/better than simply using version controlled docker-compose files instead of flat single image dockerfiles?
This is adding yet another abstraction layer on top of docker which is already a convoluted space with numerous options available. Additionally, the "Balanced control between App Devs and Operators" tagline makes me wonder how "operators" would have a better awareness of how a deployment should operate versus the developers themselves. The developers should be creating their solutions based on previously defined security constraints and compliance requirements, so what "balanced control" is being shifted around here?
So this is actually an argument for using this new tool (cloudnative buildpacks) that generates a dockerfile(?). And not some sort of clever tirade on a devops industry that generates a constant flow of overly complex tools that seem to solve the same problems again and again?
It is not a tirade against overly complex tools, no. It is an argument against individual developers doing the same work over and over again for different apps.
Cloudnative buildpacks are not especially new. Paketo buildpacks came out in 2020. The previous buildpack system predates Docker.
