Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC: Remove Stacks & Mixins #172

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Oct 7, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
202 changes: 202 additions & 0 deletions text/0000-remove-stacks-mixins.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
# Meta
[meta]: #meta
- Name: Remove Stacks & Mixins
- Start Date: 2021-06-30
- Author(s): sclevine
- RFC Pull Request: (leave blank)
- CNB Pull Request: (leave blank)
- CNB Issue: (leave blank)
- Supersedes: [RFC0069](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/blob/main/text/0069-stack-buildpacks.md), [RFC#167](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/167), many others

# Summary
[summary]: #summary

*NOTE: This proposal is part of a larger initiative to reduce complexity originally outlined in https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/167*

This RFC proposes that we remove the stack ID concept from the project and replace it with existing constructs in the container image ecosystem such as operating system name, operating system version, and architecture.

This RFC also proposes that we remove the "mixin" concept from the project entirely, eliminating strict validation of all facets of base-image-to-buildpack compatibility in favor of a more optimistic approach.

This proposal prioritizes simplicity and flexibility over the avoidance of all failure scenarios by allowing more potentially successful builds to execute.

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation

The "stack" and "mixin" concepts add unnecessary complexity to the project and make it difficult for new users and contributors to understand how buildpacks work. Compatibility guarantees that are strongly enforced by the stack contract could be replaced with metadata validations and warnings.

# What it is
[what-it-is]: #what-it-is

Summary of changes:
- Remove mixins
- Replace stack metadata (including stack IDs) with canonical OS metadata.
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

# How it Works
[how-it-works]: #how-it-works

## Base Image Metadata
sclevine marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Instead of a stack ID, runtime and build-time base images must contain the following canonicalized metadata:
- OS (e.g., "linux", `$GOOS`), specified as `os` in the base image `config`
- Architecture (e.g., "arm", `$GOARCH`), specified as `architecture` in the base image `config`
- Architecture Variant (optional) (e.g., "v6", `$GOARM`), specified as `variant` in the base image `config`
- Distribution (optional) (e.g., "ubuntu", `$ID`), specified as a label `io.buildpacks.distribution.name`
- Version (optional) (e.g., "18.04", `$VERSION_ID`), specified as a label `io.buildpacks.distribution.version`
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Additionally, the runtime base may contain the following metadata:
- Target ID (optional) (e.g., "minimal"), specified as a label `io.buildpacks.id`

OS, Architecture, and Architecture Variant must be valid identifiers as defined in the [OCI Image specification](https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/main/config.md).

Target ID is an identifier specified on the runtime base image that must be provided to buildpacks as `CNB_TARGET_ID` during the build process.
Copy link
Member

@natalieparellano natalieparellano Sep 14, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/queue-issue buildpacks/lifecycle "Analyzer should read io.buildpacks.id from run image" epic/dockerfiles type/enhancement
/queue-issue buildpacks/lifecycle "Builder should provide CNB_TARGET_* in buildpack env" epic/dockerfiles type/enhancement

Copy link
Member

@jromero jromero Sep 29, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@natalieparellano Bot pro-tip: The labels are expected to be in the following format [epic/dockerfiles][type/enhancement].

This allows buildpacks to change their behavior if a run image is selected (e.g., distroless) that has special properties outside of OS, architecture, etc.

For Linux-based images, each field should be canonicalized against values specified in `/etc/os-release` (`$ID` and `$VERSION_ID`).
The `os.version` field in an base image `config` may contain combined distribution and version information, but it is not used by the lifecycle.

For Windows-based images, Distribution should be empty. Version should be the [suggested value of `os.version`](https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/main/config.md#properties) in the OCI spec (e.g., `10.0.14393.1066`).

The `stacks` list in `buildpack.toml` is replaced by a `targets` list, where each entry corresponds to a different buildpack image that is exported into a [manifest index](https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/master/image-index.md).
natalieparellano marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Each entry may contain multiple valid values for Distribution and/or Version, but only a single OS, Architecture, and Variant.
If the `targets` list is empty and `/bin/build` is present, a target with `os = "linux"` and `arch = "x86_64"` is assumed by tools reading `buildpack.toml`.
If the `targets` list is empty and `/bin/build.bat` or `/bin/build.exe` is present, a target with `os = "windows"` and `arch = "x86_64"` is assumed by tools reading `buildpack.toml`.
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

App image builds fail if the build image and selected run image have mismatched metadata. We may introduce flags or additional labels to skip this validation (e.g., for cross-compilation or minimal runtime base images).
An image without a specified Distribution is compatible with images specifying any Distribution.
An image specifying a Distribution without a Version is compatible with images specifying any Versions of that Distribution.

When an app image is rebased, `rebaser` must fail if the new run image and previous run image have mismatched metadata. This check can be skipped for Distribution and Version by passing a new `--force` flag to `rebaser`.

Comment on lines +68 to +69
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/queue-issue buildpacks/lifecycle "Rebaser should validate new run image metadata against old run image metadata" epic/dockerfiles type/enhancement

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/queue-issue buildpacks/pack "Add --force to rebase operation"

#### Example: buildpack.toml `targets` table

```toml
hone marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
[[targets]]
os = "linux"
arch = "x86_64"
[[targets.distributions]]
name = "ubuntu"
versions = ["18.04", "20.04"]

[[targets]]
os = "linux"
arch = "x86_64"
ekcasey marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
[[targets.distributions]]
name = "ubuntu"
versions = ["14.04", "16.04"]

[[targets]]
os = "linux"
arch = "arm"
variant = "v6"
[[targets.distributions]]
name = "ubuntu"
versions = ["14.04", "16.04"]
```

## Runtime Metadata

To allow different runtime base images to be used, and to support cross-compilation in the future, buildpacks may need access to the runtime base image's target metadata.
The following environment variables will be available to buildpacks directly in the build-time environment (not via `/platform/env`):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This part is a little unclear to me. This appears to be talking about a set of environment variables that are given to the buildpacks during build-time.

  1. It's not talking about these environment variable being set on the run image right?
  2. What determines what these environment variables should be set to?
  3. What does happen if the platform provides these environment variables via /platform/env as a way to configure the desired outcome? Is it explicitly something we don't want to allow?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. Correct: "directly in the build-time environment"
  2. "runtime base image's target metadata" -- same metadata as above, but for the runtime base image
  3. All CNB_ env vars are set directly so that they are unaffected by "strict" mode that forces buildpacks to read the env vars from /platform/env

- `CNB_TARGET_OS`
- `CNB_TARGET_ARCH`
- `CNB_TARGET_VARIANT`
- `CNB_TARGET_DISTRO_NAME`
- `CNB_TARGET_DISTRO_VERSION`
- `CNB_TARGET_ID` (optional ID, if present on runtime base image `io.buildpacks.id` label)
hone marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Mixins

Mixins are no longer used. If an SBoM is available, platforms may warn when, e.g., a rebase operation would change the available packages.

### Example: CycloneDX SBoM

```json
{
"bomFormat": "CycloneDX",
"specVersion": "1.3",
"version": 1,
"components": [
{
"type": "library",
"name": "curl",
"version": "1.2.3",
"purl": "pkg:deb/ubuntu/curl@1.2.3"
},
{
"type": "library",
"name": "libcurl",
"version": "4.5.6",
"purl": "pkg:deb/ubuntu/libcurl@4.5.6"
},
...
]
}
```

### Validations

Buildpack base image metadata specified in `buildpack.toml`'s `targets` list are validated against the runtime and build-time base images.
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Runtime and build-time base image packages are no longer validated against each other.

Platforms may choose to add additional validation. For example, if an SBoM is available, `pack rebase` may fail if packages are removed from the new runtime base image.
This check may be skipped by passing a new `--force` flag to `pack rebase`.
However, this validation is not enforced by the specification.

### Migration

All existing labels and environment variables for stacks and mixins may be preserved on a base image until all users have migrated to the new format.
These labels will be deprecated (but allowed) for the forseeable future.
If the newly-specified field values are missing, the lifecycle and pack may used existing, standardized stack IDs (i.e., `io.buildpacks.stacks.*`) to determine the values of the missing fields, as long as the lifecycle and pack provide a warning for the user. More concretely, when using a stack with `io.buildpacks.stacks.bionic` lifecycle will assume the following metadata is set if these fields are empty:

```
config.os = "linux"
config.architecture = "x86_64"
io.buildpacks.distribution.name = "ubuntu"
io.buildpacks.distribution.version = "18.04"
```

Moving forward it's encouraged for buildpack authors to support both `[[stacks]]` and `[[targets]]` sections in `buildpack.toml` for maximum compatibility. In order to ease this process for those using the `io.buildpacks.stacks.bionic`, lifecycle will translate any section that sets this as on of the `stacks`:

```toml
[[stacks]]
id = "io.buildpacks.stacks.bionic
```

to

```toml
[[targets]]
os = "linux"
arch = "x86_64"
[[targets.distributions]]
name = "ubuntu"
versions = ["18.04"]
```

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to address the migration path in this RFC

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Addressed, let me know if you think I covered the relevant migration scenarios

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for adding this! Would we also continue to allow [[stacks]] in buildpack.toml, and ignore it at some point?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definitely, I can add that as well

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These labels will be deprecated (but allowed) for the forseeable future.

@jkutner This makes me think [[stacks]] and those labels would go away at the same time.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

- Involves breaking changes when existing metadata is removed.
- `CNB_TARGET_*` env vars assume a single target -- may require more breaking changes to support parallel, single-container cross-compilation in the future.

# Alternatives
[alternatives]: #alternatives

- Keep stacks.
sclevine marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- Make the above changes but keep some existing terminology: stacks, build-image, run-image.
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- Continue to allow buildpacks to specify package requirements (e.g., by PURL instead of mixins)

# Unresolved Questions
sclevine marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions

- How will migration work? Can we make new base images compatible with older buildpacks? Can we make newer buildpacks compatible with older stacks?
- What should builder.toml (and similar stack-dependent config files) look like? What should assets look like? Note: these could be decided in subsequent subteam RFCs / spec PRs.
sclevine marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- How will this affect the UX for pack buidpack package? For example package.toml contains a conflicting [platform table](https://buildpacks.io/docs/reference/config/package-config/#platform-_optional_). This should be resolved in a separate subteam RFC.
jromero marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- Are we planning to export an image for each target? Or does `pack buildpack package` require a target?
Suggestion: All targets will live in an immutable OCI Manifest Index, so all targets should be exported at the same time.

sclevine marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
# Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL)
[spec-changes]: #spec-changes

This RFC requires extensive changes to all specifications.