Provide Dockerfile instead of building Dockerfile from opta.sh

[bcdady]

I think the Opta.sh idea has some merits, but I don't understand why the contents of the Dockerfile essentially seem buried within the shell script.

I think run-x should provide an opta Dockerfile, and maybe even publish and provide a resulting container image (either in ghcr.io or Docker Hub, or other, compatible registry).

I think I might be able to help with this, so I'll get started on a branch that I can offer for a PR. It might not make sense to have it remain in this "docs" repo long term, but we can revisit that later.

[bigbitbus]

Hi @bcdady, thanks for reaching out.

The reason we have the Docker file inside of opta.sh is

1. We wanted to try to provide a single "opta.sh" file for users to try out opta, instead of having to download an image and run separately.
2. If you look at the docker file code in opta.sh there is the injection of the UID/GID of the user; because the opta cli stores information in the user's home directory (.opta), we want to make sure the permissions of the files stored there are identical to the host user. So essentially the opta.sh creates a "customized" docker image for the user with their unique UID/GID. Thats also the underlying reason its not uploaded to a docker repo.

But I'd be curious to hear your usecase for the dockerfile, as well as if you have ideas to circumvent the two above points.

Cheers!