feat: add platform option to BootcImageBuilder for architecture specification #62
Conversation
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Specify the archatecture of the image to pull | ||
|
|
||
| Default: `linux/amd64` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than defaulting to linux/amd64, please can we make this an optional input (i.e. not specified in any podman/bib commands by default) so it defaults to BIB's implementation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I think copilot called me out and fixed that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't track why there are 2 copies of the same image pull code
|
OOh nice actions! |
|
I'm converting to a draft until I can verify that I can make a linux/amd64/v2 image with BIB |
To verify the changes in this PR work as you expect, you can change your workflows to point from: to: |
| const configFilePath: string = core.getInput('config-file') | ||
| const image: string = core.getInput('image') | ||
| const builderImage: string = core.getInput('builder-image') | ||
| const platform: string = core.getInput('platform') || 'linux/amd64' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be best if this defaults to null or an empty string if the input is not found, rather than always linux/amd64.
Then elsewhere in the code, include conditions like (pseudocode):
if platform != null {
podmanArgs.push("--platform ${platform}")
}
2 participants
fixes #61
Please test, idk how best to test at this point