Untagged docker base image after launcher cleanup

I tried launcher cleanup as well as docker images prune -a and they both end up untagging the discourse/base image, leaving it as:

# docker images -a
REPOSITORY            TAG       IMAGE ID       CREATED          SIZE
local_discourse/app   latest    a413ce7df724   22 minutes ago   3.81GB
<none>                <none>    036fcfb18c90   5 weeks ago      2.86GB

The discourse/base image shows as <none>. Site still works fine. Anything to worry about?

If I run launcher app rebuild then it rebuilds the tags, but also the app image, so i end up with two app images, one of which is dangling, so if I want to cleanup unused images and not untag any then I need to manually delete the specific dangling one using docker image rm $IMAGE_ID, after which I see what was there before, i.e. fully tagged and named:

# docker images -a
REPOSITORY            TAG                 IMAGE ID       CREATED          SIZE
local_discourse/app   latest              548674fae97b   10 minutes ago   3.81GB
discourse/base        2.0.20230711-0100   036fcfb18c90   5 weeks ago      2.86GB

I guess there isn’t a way to do a full cleanup without manual deletes if I don’t want untagged images, as the prune command untags the base image.

p.s. I’m not a Docker expert.

1 Like

Hello Nordize :slight_smile:
This matter was discussed on another topic, you may find interesting information about this:

Scroll up for more info.

For what it’s worth, I do have this unnamed, untagged image on all my Discourse hosting servers, which makes me think it’s completely normal. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks for that pointer, I hadn’t found that thread when I searched. Looking at this particular post with “instructions” (they are from the Docker forum, discussing docker containers in general):

… it looks similar to the setup I see, but the aspect that’s not clear to me is whether or not it’s intended to have two images: discourse/base and discourse_latest/app image. The instructions from that [post from Docker forums seem to assume this wasn’t an intended behavior, but a remnant from unintended actions that resulted into two images instead of one.

Could someone knowledgeable (dev?) confirm?