-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 69
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 0081] Add process-specific working directories to io.buildpacks.build.metadata label #216
Comments
Should this be merged with #212 ? |
I agree with you @ekcasey ! |
Question on the implementation: If a newer buildpack (that supports working directory) is run on an older platform, what should be the behavior?
This is another feature where the buildpack api and the platform api are joined together. I wonder if there's any way to disentangle them... getting rid of |
I agree that getting rid of I think we should:
Because:
If we wanted to be sticklers about this I would take the whole process schema out of the spec and put something generic like "buildpack-provided process definition goes here" but I don't think that is in anyone's best interest currently. |
I believe #290 and the current lifecycle implementation reflects the intended state of the world... |
RFC 0081
https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/144/files
To allow platforms to inspect all information related to process types, we should add process-specific working directories to to
processes
inio.buildpacks.build.metadata
:Open Questions:
If the buildpack did not set a working directory for the process should this key be omitted or set to the app directory (which will be the working directory)? I am inclined to say it should be omitted b/c the platform could theoretically change the app dir at runtime. This admittedly is an edge case but I could imagine someone attempting a development workflow where a user mounts a modified app into the container.
pack
could be more opinionated and populate the app dir in theinspect-image
output if it is omitted from the label.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: