[Pulp-dev] Fwd: Naming/Tagging-Schema for container images

[Dennis Kliban]

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:37 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
wrote:

> In the long run, i want to publish a ci image based on centos and
> another one on fedora? Would you rather put the os_name in the tag? Or
> would you only include the os_name if it's not centos8?
> How would you see the transition to centos9?
>
> What is the purpose of publishing images that are based on different OSes?
I am genuinely curious.



> As i see it, we have three information that we need to encode:
> 1. Purpose of the container: pulp, pulp-ci, pulp-molecule, ...
> 2. Base OS: centos8, centos9 (eventually), fedora31, debian10, ...
> 3. (Y-stream) Version of pulpcore involved: master, devel, latest, 3.2, ...
> [ 4. Build number of the image ]
>
> With respect to 4., I am unsure how much value there is to keep older
> builds lying around. Is that a common practice?
>
> Older images allow users to re-deploy the exact same thing that they had
deployed somewhere else.


> I guess, we could skip "centos8" as the default value (but it should
> not hurt to tag the same image with the fully qualifying name anyway).
>
> The (harder) question is, which of these information should make up
> the (docker-/quay-)repository name and which encode the tag?
> e.g.
>   - The fedora and alpine repository have one tag for each
> (pre-)released version.
>   - Debian has tags for each version and again for the version with
> added '-slim' or '-backports'.
>   - Python uses python version with debian or alpine release as tags.
>       * [3.8.3-slim-buster, 3.8-slim-buster, 3-slim-buster,
> slim-buster, 3.8.3-slim, 3.8-slim, 3-slim, slim] all refer to the same
> container image.
>
> It seems quite common to have simple repository names and combine a
> lot of very different images with an elaborate tagging schema. Also
> certain images tend to have several tags.
>
> I agree that it is more common to include just a name in the repository
name. Pulp is different from most applications because it ships a variable
number of plugins.

We could create tags that include the name of all the plugins inside the
container. So the user would be able to run a command such as

podman run pulp/pulp:3.3.1-ansible-container-file-maven-rpm

or

podman run
pulp/pulp:3.3.1-ansible0.2.0b12-container1.3.0-file0.3.0-maven0.1.0-rpm3.3.2


This tag can get very long.

> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:46 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Long term, I would like to stop publishing container images based on
> Fedora. Images for production use should be built on top of CentOS 8
> stream[0]. The name of the image repository should not contain the OS name.
> >
> > Each 3.y release of pulpcore should live in its own repository called
> pulp/pulp-3-y. The initial release should be tagged as both 'latest' and
> '0'. Each time a compatible plugin is released, this image should be
> updated and the tag should be incremented by 1. The project website should
> contain a table that is automatically generated. The table should list what
> versions of plugins are included in each of the tags.
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6676
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:54 PM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We have recently started a new repository calles pulp-oci-images that
> >> should emit according to its name OCI compatible images with pulp
> >> installed.
> >> In the first go, this includes the single-container promoted though
> >> this blog post [0].
> >> Soon to be added is the base container image that shall speed up our CI
> [1].
> >> In the future, i envision a similar single-container solution based on
> >> centos instead of fedora,
> >> as well as ci base images based on centos having python3.6 installed.
> >> Does anyone think, we even need different ci-images for pulp release
> branches?
> >>
> >> The big question now is: How are we going to name and tag those images?
> >>
> >> The one from [0] is called "pulp/pulp-fedora31:latest".
> >> We could go with that and add names like:
> >> - "pulp/pulp-centos8:3.2"
> >>   installation of core version 3.2 with all compatible plugins on
> centos8
> >> - "pulp/pulp-ci-fedora32:latest"
> >> - "pulp/pulp-ci-centos8:latest"
> >>
> >> BTW, the ci-base images can be built by using the same Conteinerfile
> >> interrupted early.
> >> (with --target in a multistage build)
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> [0] https://pulpproject.org/2020/03/15/pulp-fedora31-single-container/
> >> [1]
> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/.travis/Containerfile.ci_base
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pulp-dev mailing list
> >> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200518/79e36f20/attachment.htm>