Stack removal: buildpack changes #336
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Terence Lee <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Terence Lee <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
|
I made the following table to summarize the difference in behavior between new and old platforms and buildpacks, with mitigation strategies for backwards compatibility:
|
|
Backwards compat strategy summarized here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_lUDh8V_A6SHV9w2ioGwqAu821WWaItSYiUKqrlmr_w/edit#gid=240821534 |
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
buildpack.md
Outdated
| 6) the stack provides the mixin `<mixin>` and the buildpack requires both `run:<mixin>` and `build:<mixin>` | ||
| 7) the stack provides the mixins `build:<mixin>` and `run:<mixin>` the buildpack requires `<mixin>` | ||
| The lifecycle MUST run `/bin/detect` for all extensions and buildpacks in a group in a container using a common build environment. | ||
| If any buildpack in a group fails to declare a target in `buildpack.toml` matching the build-time and runtime base images, the lifecycle MUST fail detection for the group. For matching criteria, see [buildpack.toml](#buildpacktoml-toml). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here we say that the the buildpack MUST declare the target but later in line 1106 it is a SHOULD.
Is this a required field or a recommended field?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added clarification in 7fd95e8
|
|
||
| If an `order` is specified, then `stacks` MUST NOT be specified. | ||
|
|
||
| Tools reading `buildpack.toml` will translate any section that sets `stacks.id = "io.buildpacks.stacks.bionic"` to: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did we end up updating the lifecycle to traslate stack ids to targets based on the information present in the OCI labels/annotations and the files present in the images?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes - that is described in the platform spec PR here: https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/335/files#diff-e603760990971da3f77be4bb8d77c3405098f006814fd8c054d2d15f395b8330R1118-R1122
Co-authored-by: Sambhav Kothari <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
|
@samj1912 - I think I addressed your feedback. Can you take another look? |
No description provided.