Page MenuHomePhabricator

Conflicting information on Docker Hub regarding maintainership
Closed, ResolvedPublic


The Docker Hub page for this project says:

Maintained by: Wikimedia Foundation & Docker Community

However according to someone from Wikimedia this is "totally wrong".

The Docker Hub page nowhere mentions that it is "strongly discouraged" and instead gives a strong impression of being run and approved by Wikimedia.

The source of the mentioned page is here. I'll refrain from suggesting any changes myself as I clearly am not familiar enough with the project, but I'd really appreciate if someone could clear it up.

Event Timeline

@Lonaowna: What do you mean when you write "Wikimedia"? The Wikimedia movement (volunteers and staff of chapters and staff of other companies and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation)? The Wikimedia Foundation? Something else?

Well I don't necessarily mean anything, but the Docker Hub page says "Wikimedia Foundation", which seems to imply some kind of official endorsement. If this isn't the case then saying something along the lines of "Wikimedia community" or like you say "Wikimedia movement" would be probably be clearer.

I'm not trying to say that you should use one term or the other, just that the current situation is not clear to me.

Yes, the Docker Hub page should indeed be updated.

I also read the message on MediaWiki.


  1. The Docker Hub page says it's official
  2. It has more than 10M downloads
  3. The source is in the wikimedia org on GitHub
  4. The GitHub Readme says it's the official image
  5. The bugtracker is hosted at

So it looks pretty official except for that one statement. 🤔

That links directly to which makes clear they're 'official' for Docker, not for us, though?

I don't think it's clear, due to the 5 points above + Lonaowna 's comments. There's a lot of conflicting/confusing info between the various sources. It's maintained by docker but the source and bug tracker are in WikiMedia's Github org, Docker says it's official but WikiMedia says it's not, except in the readme hosted in WikiMedia's repository that says it is.

I think most people will see "Docker Official" and just read "official". There's no info about it being WikiMedia unofficial on the Docker/Github side at all.

I proposed to change "Wikimedia Foundation" to "MediaWiki community".

I proposed to change "Wikimedia Foundation" to "MediaWiki community".

I'm not sure even with that change I'd be at all comfortable with that docker image representing itself as the official set from the MediaWiki community…

I proposed to change "Wikimedia Foundation" to "MediaWiki community".

I'm not sure even with that change I'd be at all comfortable with that docker image representing itself as the official set from the MediaWiki community…

It's what was suggested in you have a different suggestion? Officially (hah) myself, Addshore and David Barratt are the maintainers on record, but it's in the wikimedia GitHub org so plenty of other people have merge rights.

At the end of the day the image is just a wrapper around the tarball that installs some packages, like a living version of the [[Manual:Installing MediaWiki]] page, I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with it that we as a community would not want to be affiliated with it.

I'm not a MediaWiki expert, I'm just talking from my experience installing a new wiki.

I'm not sure the php-fgp version even works - at least there is no webserver, just php, and no instructions, so it's only useful for people who know what they're doing. See

The normal version bundles Apache and php into the same image, which is not the Docker way. However, splitting into separate images is very difficult, because of the way MediaWiki expects everything - source and config and content, to all be sitting in a single directory. And because of the fact that php is tightly coupled to a web server. MediaWiki would really need to be redesigned to make it more docker friendly, keeping the source and config completely separate (I believe there is a project to do that?).

The visual editor also doesn't work with the image, because it expects to call the API via the public URL, however it is probably running on a private network within docker. See:

There is strange behaviour with php.ini, which doesn't appear to have been configured correctly according to the instructions of the upstream image, see:

The documentation about how to configure the DB is incorrect, see:

The image is also very large, especially the Alpine version, which is supposed to be small. I think because the unpacked MediaWiki tarball is so large. It would be worth considering mounting the source as a volume, rather than packing it into the image - or some other method to keep the size down.

These are just the issues I ran into trying to use it. I eventually gave up on docker and used shared hosting.

I would highly recommend taking a look at which is the image the MediaWiki image extends from.

@dbarratt I edited the post to add links to related issues. Here is the issue for php.ini

Also, would highly recommend looking the the other CMS counterparts such as:

which share a lot of the same concepts.

T274656 is closely related to this, I guess.

Legoktm claimed this task.

The original task description has been fixed ("Conflicting information on Docker Hub regarding maintainership") IMO. Issues with using the image itself should go on their own bug reports please.