-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
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
Proposal to add OCI Image Annotations on Buildpacks #307
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
1d678e5
to
9652210
Compare
* `org.opencontainers.image.source` | ||
* `org.opencontainers.image.revision` | ||
* `org.opencontainers.image.title` | ||
* `org.opencontainers.image.version` | ||
|
||
The following additional annotation are recommended: | ||
* `org.opencontainers.image.url` | ||
* `org.opencontainers.image.description` |
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.
according to the spec you sent, would org.opencontainers.image.created
, org.opencontainers.image.authors
, org.opencontainers.image.documentation
, etc be required as well?
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 don't believe they would be required, but if they are available, they should be specified. For paketo, I don't see any of that information readily available in buildpack.toml
or elsewhere, so I didn't include them in this RFC.
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.
How do you know which fields in the upstream spec you sent are required?
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 assuming that no fields are required, only that if they are present, they are required to meet the requirements for that field's value.
That's what I see in the wild, at least. I can't find a single image that specifies all of those fields, but I see a number that specify some.
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. The wording of the RFC All Paketo Buildpacks must have at least the following OCI image annotations
made me think that this was required to be OCI compliant which was why I was confused.
I think this RFC seems like a good idea, especially if we can pull from the buildpack.toml fields as you suggested
As a quick clarifying question this is seeking to add these image labels to the buildpack images we release. Not to add them to the images that are produced by the buildpacks correct? |
Correct. Although I do think that's a good idea, I think it would best be pursued in a separate RFC. https://github.com/paketo-buildpacks/image-labels does most of that already, so the implementation of such an RFC would be to apply it by default with reasonable default values. |
It this is something that you would like added to the buildpack images themselves that I think it my make sense to try and push this up the stack into I would be more than happy to help facilitate an interaction if that is something that you are interested in. |
That makes sense to me! That would benefit more than just paketo too, which is nice.
I'm certainly interested, can you please point me in the right direction? Thank you! |
For sure. The upstream project has an RFCs repository https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs. Their RFCs have a slightly different format but that is laid out in the repository itself. You are free to open a PR with an RFC in it. Please feel free to link me the RFC when you open it. |
@candrews Is there anything else that needs to be done on this RFC? Should we close it out in favor of an upstream PR or do you want to modify this one? |
I submitted the RFC to buildpacks at buildpacks/rfcs#314 - could you please facilitate this process? |
Summary
Use Cases
Checklist