Safe Vault is available as a docker image called msafe/vault on Docker Hub. Alternatively, it’s possible to build the image using the Dockerfile found in the root safe_vault directory.
To pull the latest Safe Vault image from Docker Hub:
docker pull msafe/vault
but …
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe$ docker pull msafe/vault
Using default tag: latest
Error response from daemon: manifest for msafe/vault:latest not found
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe$ docker pull -a msafe/vault
Error response from daemon: repository msafe/vault not found
OK, I’ve worked out what’s going on - the msafe/vault image on Dockerhub is basically out of date and unmaintained so there’s nothing with the tag “latest” for Docker to pull.
I’ve managed to build the Docker image locally and try and push it to Dockerhub. I’ll post here to let you know how I get on - most likely the readme for the Safe Vault will need updated too.
That’s pretty much what I suspected. Vaults are somewhat of a niche interest at this particular stage and it is unsurprising that effort has been elsewhere.
Thank you for a quick investigation and report.
I tried. Havent looked at it too hard though - Busy with other stuff today
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe$ docker images
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
maidsafe/vault latest 0bd0645af070 2 hours ago 436MB
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe$ docker run -i -t 0bd0645af070 /bin/bash
Updating crates.io index
Updating git repository `https://github.com/povilasb/routing`
Updating git repository `https://github.com/povilasb/crust`
Updating crates.io index
Updating git repository `https://github.com/maidsafe/socket-collection`
error: failed to select a version for `log`.
... required by package `crust v0.31.0 (https://github.com/povilasb/crust?rev=testing#6a94e3ca)`
... which is depended on by `routing v0.37.0 (https://github.com/povilasb/routing?rev=update-crust#9c1a73b9)`
... which is depended on by `safe_vault v0.18.0 (/home/maidsafe/src/safe_vault)`
versions that meet the requirements `~0.4.6` are: 0.4.6
all possible versions conflict with previously selected packages.
previously selected package `log v0.4.1`
... which is depended on by `routing v0.37.0 (https://github.com/povilasb/routing?rev=update-crust#9c1a73b9)`
... which is depended on by `safe_vault v0.18.0 (/home/maidsafe/src/safe_vault)`
failed to select a version for `log` which could resolve this conflict
./installer/docker/docker-entrypoint.sh: line 333: ./safe_vault: No such file or directory
Simply reporting the initial attempt - I’ll look at it more closely tonight if I get time. As expected it may need some TLC. Still, we move forward, thank you
@southside I was just messaging you there! Yeah, I’m having that issue with the docker image too. Think it was something I did though so have for the meantime deleted the image from dockerhub.
When I’ve figured it out I will push a working image back up to dockerhub. If you want / have time you could try the local build option. If you do please let me know how you get on, thanks.
------ SNIP -some time passed many lines scrolled by with no error -------
Compiling futures-cpupool v0.1.8
Compiling msdos_time v0.1.5
Compiling tar v0.4.16
Compiling textwrap v0.6.0
Compiling aho-corasick v0.6.4
Compiling tokio-timer v0.2.1
error: failed to run custom build command for `openssl-sys v0.9.35`
process didn't exit successfully: `/home/maidsafe/src/safe_vault/target/release/build/openssl-sys-29624bec371f6aa0/build-script-main` (exit code: 101)
--- stdout
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=X86_64_ALPINE_LINUX_MUSL_OPENSSL_LIB_DIR
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=OPENSSL_LIB_DIR
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=X86_64_ALPINE_LINUX_MUSL_OPENSSL_INCLUDE_DIR
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=OPENSSL_INCLUDE_DIR
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=X86_64_ALPINE_LINUX_MUSL_OPENSSL_DIR
cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=OPENSSL_DIR
run pkg_config fail: "`\"pkg-config\" \"--libs\" \"--cflags\" \"openssl\"` did not exit successfully: exit code: 1\n--- stderr\nPackage openssl was not found in the pkg-config search path.\nPerhaps you should add the directory containing `openssl.pc\'\nto the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable\nPackage \'openssl\', required by \'virtual:world\', not found\n"
--- stderr
thread 'main' panicked at '
Could not find directory of OpenSSL installation, and this `-sys` crate cannot
proceed without this knowledge. If OpenSSL is installed and this crate had
trouble finding it, you can set the `OPENSSL_DIR` environment variable for the
compilation process.
Make sure you also have the development packages of openssl installed.
For example, `libssl-dev` on Ubuntu or `openssl-devel` on Fedora.
If you're in a situation where you think the directory *should* be found
automatically, please open a bug at https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl
and include information about your system as well as this message.
$HOST = x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
$TARGET = x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
openssl-sys = 0.9.35
', /home/maidsafe/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/openssl-sys-0.9.35/build/main.rs:265:9
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
warning: build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
error: build failed
./installer/docker/docker-entrypoint.sh: line 333: ./safe_vault: No such file or directory
I did some checking as below and I think the libssl-dev package should be found automatically so I’m going to file a bug as advised above on sfackler/rust-openssl.
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ openssl version -d
OPENSSLDIR: "/usr/lib/ssl"
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ echo $OPENSSL_DIR
/usr/lib/ssl
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkgconfig/
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ locate openssl.pc
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkgconfig/openssl.pc
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ openssl version
OpenSSL 1.1.0g 2 Nov 2017
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/dockerstuff/safe_vault$ sudo apt-get install pkg-config libssl-dev
[sudo] password for willie:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
pkg-config is already the newest version (0.29.1-0ubuntu2).
pkg-config set to manually installed.
libssl-dev is already the newest version (1.1.0g-2ubuntu4.3).
0 to upgrade, 0 to newly install, 0 to remove and 0 not to upgrade.
Yeah, that looks like the same issue we got when we tried to run (after rebuilding it locally). I will try and find a way to fix - will let you know if / when I do.
I’ve spent a wee bit more time on this issue today (have commented on the issue you raised on GitHub BTW but I don’t think we’re going to be able to resolve simply as I will expand on).
As noted, the root issue stems from the absence of the openssl-dev package when we run the docker image. I thought at first a quick fix might be to add an install command to Dockerfile. So, I tried adding the line apk openssl-dev
to the part of the Dockerfile that adds packages. This didn’t work however…
After speaking to Chris our devops guy, it seems the issue is probably more deeply routed than a simple missing package.
This docker image bases from the Alpine image, a very minimal version of Linux. The failure occurs because when the container runs, it attempts to build safe_vault if a pre-built binary hasn’t already been supplied. The problem is that Alpine isn’t a really good OS for a build environment, so it’s not a one-line change to simply install the missing package it’s complaining about, as it doesn’t have said package available.
We might want to refactor it into 2 different docker images: one for building safe_vault and one for deploying a pre-built safe binary. We would need to take some time to think about exactly how we would go about this.
So, basically we are building a docker container which then, when run, itself builds the safe_vault. A better solution would be to build the safe_vault initially and then supply that to docker when we build the container. In that case when we run the container, we would be deploying a pre made safe_vault.
Unfortunately at this moment in time our docker container doesn’t do this and to get it to a position where it does would require some work. I’m afraid it isn’t high priority right now so I really don’t know if / when it might happen…
If you are up for a docker learning “challenge” you could try it yourself maybe?
Sorry we haven’t been able to resolve this more satisfactorily.
Exactly! You build the image in 2 steps: First you compile the source in a rust image and then you copy the generated executable to the final image.
This is a common technique, and I have used it to build the image for the network community (tsafe/vault3 on docker hub). Here is the Dockerfile to build it.
# Clone repo and build application
# Note: rust image contains git
FROM rust:1.30.1 as build
# Get Vault source files from github
WORKDIR /usr/src
RUN git clone https://github.com/Thierry61/safe_vault.git
# Build application
WORKDIR /usr/src/safe_vault
RUN cargo build --release
# Small final image
FROM ubuntu:latest
WORKDIR /app
# Don't copy other things than final executable, notably not build (132MB) nor deps (490MB)
COPY --from=build /usr/src/safe_vault/target/release/safe_vault .
# Copy config files
COPY log.yml *.config ./
# Launch vault. For the first one, environment variable vault_args must be set to -f with: -e "vault_args=-f"
CMD ./safe_vault $vault_args
There are many things you can do based on this:
Use a more recent version of rust
Use Maidsafe safe_vault repo instead of mine
Put your own config files in context directory (mine were adapted to the community network)
Replace log.yml with log.toml
Use Alpine instead of Ubuntu for a smaller final image size (It’s just that I know Ubuntu and not Alpine and 100 MB is not that big)
Edit: For illustration, I have just rebuilt my safe_vault image for the community network (with a new contact list) and the resulting sizes are:
PS C:\Users\212529844\Documents\Docker\tsafe\vault3> docker images
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
tsafe/vault3 3.0 3d5d924423ed About a minute ago 100MB
<none> <none> fba71e7caf34 About a minute ago 2.15GB
The builder image is 2.15GB but the final image is only 100MB.
