stale[bot]
commented
1 year ago This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
Closed channingduan closed 2 weeks ago
stale[bot]
commented
1 year ago This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
davidkhala
commented
1 year ago I don't think we should be spending time implementing support for the legacy (Fabric v1.x) chaincode packaging.
The Fabric v2.x chaincode packaging is a well-defined tar/gzip file structure. Tools and libraries already exist for creating tar/gzip files so I don't see a lot of value in providing explicit support for creating them in the admin SDK either.
Maybe we can consider 1 option if we really want to provide something here: A validator (func or binary) that make sure the provided tar/gzip is under well-defined file structure.
bestbeforetoday
commented
1 year ago Would local validation do anything different from the validation that gets done in the peer when installing a chaincode package?
bestbeforetoday
commented
2 weeks ago Closing this as we are not targeting the deprecated chaincode deployment mechanism, and there seems to be no end-user demand.
I don't think we should be spending time implementing support for the legacy (Fabric v1.x) chaincode packaging.
The Fabric v2.x chaincode packaging is a well-defined tar/gzip file structure. Tools and libraries already exist for creating tar/gzip files so I don't see a lot of value in providing explicit support for creating them in the admin SDK either.