Proposal to publish multi-arch buildpacks

paketo-buildpacks / rfcs

Apache License 2.0

19 stars 33 forks source link

Proposal to publish multi-arch buildpacks #288

Open jpena-r7 opened 1 year ago

jpena-r7 commented 1 year ago

Readable

Checklist

[X] I have viewed, signed, and submitted the Contributor License Agreement.
[ ] I have linked issue(s) that this PR should close using keywords or the Github UI (See docs)
[ ] I have added an integration test, if necessary.
[ ] I have reviewed the styleguide for guidance on my code quality.
[ ] I'm happy with the commit history on this PR (I have rebased/squashed as needed).

loewenstein commented 1 year ago

I haven't really been following the existing arm64 work in the cloud native buildpacks and paketo communities. One thing I am wondering about in the context of this RFC is what the longer-term picture is? Is this RFC a stepping stone towards pack build --multi-arch (or whatever the flag for this would be) producing multi architecture application images with Paketo buildpacks - I assume that's what we want in the end.

dmikusa commented 1 year ago

One thing I am wondering about in the context of this RFC is what the longer-term picture is? Is this RFC a stepping stone towards pack build --multi-arch (or whatever the flag for this would be) producing multi architecture application images with Paketo buildpacks - I assume that's what we want in the end.

@loewenstein the current work upstream is adding a lower level feature like Docker manifest so you can compose two images into an index.

Down the road that will be more automatic. The normal pack commands will be enhanced to support building multi arch images.

In the meantime Paketo will have to fill in the gaps in our pipelines. Maybe with some additional tooling too. That's what we're doing with the stack builds now, enhancing jam to publish a multi arch image for the stack.

dmikusa commented 1 year ago

@jpena-r7 Thanks so much for writing this up. Excellent to pull all of this information together and help get everyone focused on this topic.

linux-foundation-easycla[bot] commented 1 year ago

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

:white_check_mark: login: jpena-r7 / name: Jerico Pena (cbc8ed5007b726d147e6b3552e7e349ac9034338)
:white_check_mark: login: jericop / name: Jerico Pena (f71a0281dbb9b0cb07475eabb19b2af33eb006c8)

robdimsdale commented 1 year ago

@jpena-r7 FYI looks like you made changes under the @jericop account which hasn't signed a CLA. I'm not sure if you want to recreate them under your Rapid 7 account or sign the CLA on the other account.

jericop commented 1 year ago

@jpena-r7 FYI looks like you made changes under the @jericop account which hasn't signed a CLA. I'm not sure if you want to recreate them under your Rapid 7 account or sign the CLA on the other account.

I plan to start contributing from @jericop going forward so I signed the CLA. Sorry for the confusion.