Proposal to add OCI Image Annotations on Buildpacks

candrews commented 6 months ago

Summary

Use Cases

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).

ForestEckhardt commented 6 months ago

As a quick clarifying question this is seeking to add these image labels to the buildpack images we release. Not to add them to the images that are produced by the buildpacks correct?

candrews commented 6 months ago

As a quick clarifying question this is seeking to add these image labels to the buildpack images we release. Not to add them to the images that are produced by the buildpacks correct?

Correct.

Although I do think that's a good idea, I think it would best be pursued in a separate RFC. https://github.com/paketo-buildpacks/image-labels does most of that already, so the implementation of such an RFC would be to apply it by default with reasonable default values.

ForestEckhardt commented 6 months ago

It this is something that you would like added to the buildpack images themselves that I think it my make sense to try and push this up the stack into pack. We use the pack buildpack package to turn a "formatted" tarball into an OCI image so it may make sense to ask them to add these terms to that tarball by default using the values present in the buildpack.toml.

I would be more than happy to help facilitate an interaction if that is something that you are interested in.

candrews commented 6 months ago

It this is something that you would like added to the buildpack images themselves that I think it my make sense to try and push this up the stack into pack. We use the pack buildpack package to turn a "formatted" tarball into an OCI image so it may make sense to ask them to add these terms to that tarball by default using the values present in the buildpack.toml.

That makes sense to me! That would benefit more than just paketo too, which is nice.

I would be more than happy to help facilitate an interaction if that is something that you are interested in.

I'm certainly interested, can you please point me in the right direction? Thank you!

ForestEckhardt commented 6 months ago

For sure. The upstream project has an RFCs repository https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs. Their RFCs have a slightly different format but that is laid out in the repository itself. You are free to open a PR with an RFC in it. Please feel free to link me the RFC when you open it.

ForestEckhardt commented 5 months ago

@candrews Is there anything else that needs to be done on this RFC? Should we close it out in favor of an upstream PR or do you want to modify this one?

candrews commented 5 months ago

@candrews Is there anything else that needs to be done on this RFC? Should we close it out in favor of an upstream PR or do you want to modify this one?

I submitted the RFC to buildpacks at https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/314 - could you please facilitate this process?

ForestEckhardt commented 2 months ago

Hey there @candrews, I see that the upstream proposal was accepted. Is there anything that still needs to happen with this RFC or has everything you wanted been accomplished in the upstream RFC?

candrews commented 2 months ago

I believe the upstream RFC covers it. Now I hope it gets implemented 🤞

Thank you!

paketo-buildpacks / rfcs