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 #0096] Remove stacks from platform spec #258

Closed
Tracked by #219
buildpack-bot opened this issue Oct 6, 2021 · 6 comments · Fixed by #335
Closed
Tracked by #219

[RFC #0096] Remove stacks from platform spec #258

buildpack-bot opened this issue Oct 6, 2021 · 6 comments · Fixed by #335
Assignees

Comments

@buildpack-bot
Copy link
Member

This issue have been automatically created from pull request buildpacks/rfcs#172.

@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

Could this be added to a milestone? Is Platform 0.9 the right place to put it?

@jromero
Copy link
Member

jromero commented Jan 3, 2022

I can assist by starting to work on defining this. I'm okay with targeting 0.9 but don't know what all it may take at this point in time.

@jromero jromero self-assigned this Jan 3, 2022
@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

Are we keeping stack.toml? The RFC didn't mention it AFAIK. We still need the contents of the file, but maybe we should rename it?

@jabrown85
Copy link
Contributor

I'm looking to start work on this - any movement on the spec yet @jromero? I'm currently thinking about what changes to analzyed.toml would look like

@jromero
Copy link
Member

jromero commented Jan 20, 2022

@jabrown85, nothing concrete as of yet. Trying to get the distribution spec changes related to removing stacks here: https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/271/files

I think doing that first would be ideal to reduce churn in platform spec changes.

@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

Closed in #335

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants