Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 for OCI Image Annotations on Buildpacks #314
RFC for OCI Image Annotations on Buildpacks #314
Changes from 1 commit
7dc794a
04e957e
dca1e5e
1ac8295
d2b2b1a
438fdde
cc8e2f4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens when an app has more than one buildpack? The proposed schema doesn't support more than one entry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The RFC is for the buildpacks themselves - not for the apps built by the buildpacks.
For example, it would apply to the Paketo Java buildpack,
gcr.io/paketo-buildpacks/java
, not to the application it builds.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah ok. I think the RFC wording might need adjusting to make that clearer.
For example here:
"buildpack tool" isn't a phrase that's really used by this project, and read to me as meaning "the buildpack".
So it then read as:
"The buildpack should set OCI annotations on the OCI artifacts it produces"
...and the only OCI artifacts created when the buildpack runs is the app OCI image.
It sounds like what you're really proposing is a change to the buildpack distribution specification:
https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/blob/main/distribution.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Combined with proposing that the Pack CLI implement these changes, so that when a buildpack maintainer runs
pack buildpack package
to package their buildpack into the OCI image form of distribution it has the proposed labels set.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of:
I've updated the RFC to say:
Does that eliminate the confusion?
I believe so - is there something I should do in this RFC to indicate as much?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah that does thank you.
So I think this comes down to whether this RFC is proposing only a change to the Pack CLI's own implementation, or a change to the specification which then the Pack CLI (plus any other implementations) would implement. If the latter, than the spec change could be described under the "spec change" section of the RFC template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated this MR to indicate that the Distribution spec would also be updated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm still seeing a lot of references to: "
buildpack
tool". Can we ensure this RFC is consistent in its terminology?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated all occurrences of "
buildpack
tool" to be "pack
tool" for consistency