-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 145
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
Builds fail with example builder images unless experimental image extension enabled #170
Comments
What are the next steps for this? As far as I can tell, any end-users trying out the samples in this repo will have had a broken build for the alpine example since July. Whilst the alpine example probably isn't the first example people will try, it might still put some people off the project if the official examples don't work. |
@edmorley We should now have experimental feature support in the latest We also have plans to refactor our docs at buildpacks/rfcs#296, which should hopefully see us documenting this better. |
@AidanDelaney Thank you for the reply. I realise experimental mode can be enabled (see OP), this issue is about the examples not working out of the box (ie default configuration). |
I need to do some samples work this week, I can look into this |
Fixed in 0a90553 |
In CI a `pack build` is performed using one of libcnb's example CNBs and the upstream `cnb/sample-builder:alpine` builder, in order to test that our static MUSL compile works with non-libc base images. However, in #594 the version of that builder had to be pinned to an older release, to work around a temporary incompatibility between the latest version of the builder and the latest stable Pack CLI. That issue has now been resolved: buildpacks/samples#170 So we can switch back to the latest image version again.
This still reproduces:
Unless there is a way to configure the buildpack image to force Pack CLI to enable the experimental features, the experimental rebase features should not be used in these "hello world" type images, and instead demonstrated via other images IMO. These samples are for basic getting started scenarios, and as-is they don't work out of the box. |
I have yet to pick this up, but it's on my list... |
Is this something that we can address by improving the docs? Right now you must enable experimental features for this sample to work. |
There are two issues here:
I filed this issue primarily about (2), so fixing (1) whilst useful in general would not resolve this issue. |
ie: If you want a sample that shows how to use Dockerfiles extensions then it should be completely separate from other builders like the alpine example. |
In CI a `pack build` is performed using one of libcnb's example CNBs and the upstream `cnb/sample-builder:alpine` builder, in order to test that our static MUSL compile works with non-libc base images. However, in #594 the version of that builder had to be pinned to an older release, to work around a temporary incompatibility between the latest version of the builder and the latest stable Pack CLI. That issue has now been resolved: buildpacks/samples#170 So we can switch back to the latest image version again.
Hi! I am following the App developer guide. In the Specify buildpacks section, I was using the Pack CLI to specify which buildpacks are used during the build process, and I encountered the error:
|
If I try a Pack build using Pack CLI 0.30.0 and
pack build --builder cnbs/sample-builder:alpine ...
, I currently get the following error:eg:
https://github.com/heroku/libcnb.rs/actions/runs/6113111959/job/16591949217?pr=668#step:10:119
I was wondering whether it might be best to move the experimental extension support to a different Docker image tag until Pack CLI can support it out of the box (without needing to enable non-default features).
(Originally discussed at: https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/C033DV8D9FB/p1694119138551089)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: