thaJeztah
commented
1 year ago Things to look for;
- current packages don't have a
$pkgRevisionin them; sounds like it's useful to have so that we can do a packaging-only build (e.g.$pkgRevision=1or$pkgRevision=2) - what's the
-r0suffix in the.apkpackage? - we should try what the version looks like for a pre-release (
0.10.0-rc2) and make sure it uses tilde (~) not hyphen (-) for the pre-release suffix - do we know if
_<arch>vs.<arch>is something we control, or is that standard convention / automatic difference betweenrpmanddeb? - probably we should discuss wether or not to include distro codename (for debian / ubuntu). They're not "needed", but (see the issue in docker-ce-packaging), we tend to refer to distro versions sometimes using their codename ("debian bullseye") sometimes using version ("debian 11"). This can be confusing (I for one always have to look up "oh, what version was that?"), so having both in the name could be useful for that
- formatting of the ubuntu versions (
1804vs18.04; see https://github.com/docker/docker-ce-packaging/pull/817#discussion_r1066942240) - if we include both codename and version and distro, wether or not to include separators (
ubuntu.22.10~kinetic) and what separator to use; https://github.com/docker/docker-ce-packaging/blob/6e7d52709586ca25e53ce46fc61b35bf9385a7a0/deb/build-deb#L50-L75
Atm following distro packages matrix is in place in this repo:
centos7docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-centos7.x86_64.rpmcentos8docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-centos8.x86_64.rpmfedora33docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora33.x86_64.rpmfedora34docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora34.x86_64.rpmfedora35docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora35.x86_64.rpmfedora36docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora36.x86_64.rpmdebian10docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-debian10_amd64.debdebian11docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-debian11_amd64.debalpiner0docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-r0_x86_64.apkraspbian10docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-raspbian10_amd64.debraspbian11docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-raspbian11_amd64.debubuntu1804docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu1804_amd64.debubuntu2004docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2004_amd64.debubuntu2110docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2110_amd64.debubuntu2204docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2204_amd64.deb@thaJeztah Looking at this issue https://github.com/docker/for-linux/issues/1315 I guess the current behavior here is correct. Should we align docker-ce-packaging and containerd-package repos with this release scheme?