Skip to content

image manifest: add source annotation#71

Merged
vbatts merged 1 commit into
opencontainers:masterfrom
gregkh:image_source
May 7, 2016
Merged

image manifest: add source annotation#71
vbatts merged 1 commit into
opencontainers:masterfrom
gregkh:image_source

Conversation

@gregkh

@gregkh gregkh commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

For a number of images, source code needs to be provided due to the
license of the files in the image, so provide an annotation to make it
easy to determine where that source can be found.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org

For a number of images, source code needs to be provided due to the
license of the files in the image, so provide an annotation to make it
easy to determine where that source can be found.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
@vbatts

vbatts commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

So much. I debated on this field, and/or LICENSE. And what the value would be.
Otherwise LGTM

@vbatts
vbatts merged commit ed95311 into opencontainers:master May 7, 2016
@gregkh

gregkh commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks, LICENSE wouldn't work given the normal mix of tons of different licenses in a single image. But it really would be nice if we could add it on a per-file basis if possible, let me look into that...

@cgwalters

Copy link
Copy Markdown

For things like this I'd expect a little bit more referencing of prior art (deb/rpm/etc).

For example - should this URL attempt to reference an exact git commit for something you happened to git clone in your Dockerfile, or is it more like just a URL to the git repo?

And what about multiple sources?

@vbatts

vbatts commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I was thinking to a tarball or repo. Perhaps folks could comma delimit a
list

On Sat, May 7, 2016, 18:14 Colin Walters notifications@github.com wrote:

For things like this I'd expect a little bit more referencing of prior art
(deb/rpm/etc).

For example - should this URL attempt to reference an exact git commit for
something you happened to git clone in your Dockerfile, or is it more
like just a URL to the git repo?

And what about multiple sources?


You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#71 (comment)

@gregkh

gregkh commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@cgwalters as it is, this will support what Debian does for their docker containers, see: https://hub.docker.com/_/debian/

I would have loved to build off of the LICENSE stuff from RPM and DEB, but due to an image just being a big mass of files, all with potentially different licenses, that doesn't work, hence this patch.

It's up to the creator of the image to properly provide source (hint, almost no one does, this is not good), so this gives people a way to start to do that correctly.

If you can think of a way to do this on a per-file basis, that would be wonderful, but I don't see how to do that right now. Unless I'm missing something?

@gregkh
gregkh deleted the image_source branch May 7, 2016 17:33
@philips

philips commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@gregkh I am not seeing what debian does. Can you add a bit onto this PR that says "(e.g. a Debian base image might use the URL https://debian.org/foo/bar)".

Thanks!

@philips

philips commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Oh, and I am +1 for this change.

@gregkh

gregkh commented May 7, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@philips this PR has already been merged, I can't change it now. Do you mean for me to add the example into the spec itself?

@philips

philips commented May 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Submitting the example as a new PR is great.

On Sat, May 7, 2016, 8:00 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman notifications@github.com
wrote:

@philips https://github.com/philips this PR has already been merged, I
can't change it now. Do you mean for me to add the example into the spec
itself?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#71 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants