Closed jmontleon closed 2 years ago
buildx is not support now, now:
buildx=build
It's an alias of build
We should investigate adding the option to build, if possible
buildx is not support now, now:
buildx=build
It's an alias of build
Yes, as I understand it with the intention of improving docker compatibility: https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/RELEASE_NOTES.md#changes-1
And I was curious about the possibility of handling the --output flag as described in the linked comment (https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/11130#issuecomment-893238602)
What does the --output flag do?
So with these flags, you would expect to not see the images in buildah images when you are done, or would it be fine if they were there?
I think with --output=type=docker
it would be expected to see them. As mentioned in the other comment podman's default behavior seems to be equal to --load
or --output=type=docker
.
On docker after running a build with this I have.
# docker images
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
velero/velero main fff42aff204b 28 seconds ago 111MB
golang 1.17 80d9a75ccb38 4 hours ago 941MB
In podman:
$ docker images
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
<none> <none> 852d9dfae0a3 32 seconds ago 1.02 GB
docker.io/library/golang 1.17 80d9a75ccb38 4 hours ago 963 MB
From the docs it looks like there are other options: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/buildx_build/#output
local, tar, oci,docker,image,registry. I don't have a strong sense of what to expect with each of these. The error only became an issue when trying to use podman in place of docker for testing builds before submitting PRs to the upstream project.
Yes it looks like this docker buildx build --output=type=docker ... docker buildx build --output=type=oci ... is the equivalent of podman build --format docker ... podman build --format oci ... (Default)
The others are a little more chalenging, since they probably involve podman build ... podman push XYZ dir:XYZ I am not sure if --tag has the ability to do this.
A friendly reminder that this issue had no activity for 30 days.
@flouthoc ptal
Should this be moved to buildah?
I think we can mirror --format
with --output=type=
at buildah side it self.
The others are a little more chalenging, since they probably involve podman build ... podman push XYZ dir:XYZ I am not sure if --tag has the ability to do this.
The --tag
flag can be used to do some of the things in this area, but it currently expects anything other than an image name to look like a name that would be passed to skopeo(1)
, transport name and all, which is different syntax. It also does not expect to be used when building the same sources for multiple target platforms.
A friendly reminder that this issue had no activity for 30 days.
@flouthoc aren't you working on this?
@rhatdan Yes there is already a PR for this but it requires few changes. I got this.
A friendly reminder that this issue had no activity for 30 days.
Hi, Support for --output
is merged here https://github.com/containers/buildah/pull/3823 should be out in next release.
Thanks
/kind bug
Description
Trying to use podman to build velero with their
make container
command I get the errorError: unknown flag: --output
Steps to reproduce the issue:
make container
Describe the results you received:
Error: unknown flag: --output
Describe the results you expected: Build finished successfully
Additional information you deem important (e.g. issue happens only occasionally):
Output of
podman version
:I also tried podman 4.0.0 rc2 RPM for Fedora 35. No change.
Output of
podman info --debug
:Package info (e.g. output of
rpm -q podman
orapt list podman
):Have you tested with the latest version of Podman and have you checked the Podman Troubleshooting Guide? (https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/troubleshooting.md)
No (I did and got the same result with 4.0.0 rc2)
Physical system.
This was brought up here and it sounded like the intention was to swallow the option, but maybe overlooked, or decided that would not be appropriate: https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/11130#issuecomment-893238602