Update Python image on Dockerhub

[ralienpp]

I use OQS in a project with Python and I was wondering whether the image could be updated (the page says it is discontinued, but encourages visitors to raise this point here).

Right now we have a CI pipeline that builds it in accordance with our needs, but it would simplify matters if we could use an image provided by the development team.

[SWilson4]

Hi @ralienpp, thanks for the question. Does your build rely on the OpenSSL 1.1.1 fork or the OpenSSL 3 provider?

[ralienpp]

We rely on the OpenSSL 3 provider.

[baentsch]

Good to know there is some interest in this. Would you be interested contributing your build as an updated Dockerfile, e.g./i.e., here? But of course, we could also add it as another demo...

[ralienpp]

I think there's nothing wrong with what you already have. My wish is to update the image on Dockerhub, using the recipe you already have, but with a new version of liboqs and liboqs-python.

Our Dockerfile doesn't use Alpine, but Ubuntu; and it is much simpler:

FROM ubuntu:22.04

RUN apt-get update && \
    apt-get install -y python3 python3-pip openssl libssl-dev cmake git && \
    apt-get clean

# Build and install liboqs-python
RUN git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs-python && \
    cd liboqs-python && \
    pip install . 

[baentsch]

there's nothing wrong with what you already have

If you're referring to https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs-python/blob/main/docker/Dockerfile (?) there is something wrong imo (outdated, rather): It's not based on oqsprovider but the discontinued oqs-openssl111 fork.

[alraddady]

Since this issue falls outside the scope of oqs-demos and relates to liboqs-python, do you think we should close it, @baentsch?

[baentsch]

Well, it is a report of a real shortcoming and it shouldn't matter where it's located. If we'd want to update it to oqsprovider use I'd actually consider moving this Dockerfile from the liboqs-python sub project to oqs-demos instead as we've got more experience with Docker images here. What do you think about that @hawazyn?

On the other hand, @ralienpp seems to be the only user of the image and didn't respond to the question as to whether he may be willing to contribute his Dockerfile to ease our effort, nor whether we're really talking about the same thing.

[alraddady]

I agree with your point. Let’s proceed with what you suggested.