docs: update Alpine size and musl description#2504
Open
MikeMcC399 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
Author
This was referenced May 14, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
supersedes and consolidates docs: update Alpine size descriptions #2496 and docs: update Alpine musl descriptions #2497
closes Review description of image sizes in README #2432
Description
Convert the size-related information in the README node:alpine section to fact-based, verifiable statements. Convert the musl description to a shorter form.
Remove opinionated recommendation statements.
Motivation and Context
The README node:alpine section has a high emphasis on image size as the basis for selection. It quotes the size of the original base image without comparing the size of the images after Node.js has been added.
It unconditionally recommends
node:alpineon the basis of size. This is without regard for the currently higher Tier 1 / 2 status of Debian images. This may lead users to chose Alpine images wherenode:slimDocker images may be a better fit.The section also refers to the use of
muslinstead ofglibcand suggests that it is a safe choice.This is in contrast to:
glibc(Debian, and related distros such as Ubuntu & Fedora) that do not run undermuslmuslonx64only (see Node.js BUILDING > Platform list), compared to wide support by Node.js forglibcon multiple architectures as Tier 1 / 2 support typeThe original text was posted 10 years ago and includes a level of detail that is not necessary for selection or use of node:alpine Docker images.
Testing Details
N/A
Example Output (if appropriate)
N/A
Types of changes
Checklist