Add the `nginx-module-acme` module

[Ecco]

Bug Overview

Currently the nginx-module-acme module is not included in any Docker image. It'd be great if it was.

[thresheek]

Hi @Ecco!

Indeed, we need to work on it. For now, I tend to think we should include it into "regular" non-slim images. Other option is a separate image similar to otel one, but I think it's not the best way to do it.

Thoughts?

[Ecco]

Honestly, I don't really know!

I'm not quite sure why there are already separate images to begin with. After all, the point of dynamic modules is precisely to let users load them as needed and not waste RAM. So the only upside of separate images is that we would save a bit on container sizes. Given how massively bloated containers are in general, I really don't think that adding a few nginx modules to an nginx image would really matter.

Also what if a user wants module-a and module-b, but not module-c? Should we build an image for every single combination?

If I were to make a (not very well informed) decision, I would simply build a single one-size-fits-all image with all modules. And if someone is unhappy with the container size, they can build their own image (which is not that hard if you use Debian packages).

In the meantime, here's my own Dockerfile that's usable today:

FROM nginx:1.29.1


RUN echo "deb [signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/nginx-archive-keyring.gpg] https://nginx.org/packages/mainline/debian/ bookworm nginx" > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nginx.list &&\
    apt-get update && \
    apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends nginx-module-acme && \
    rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*

[khanhicetea]

Hi @Ecco!

Indeed, we need to work on it. For now, I tend to think we should include it into "regular" non-slim images. Other option is a separate image similar to otel one, but I think it's not the best way to do it.

Thoughts?

Agree with @Ecco , if you plan to make a separated image, better make it as a full-features image (dynamic modules) and let developer choose to use and load it :)