10000 Transitioning DockerFile and Moby Build features · Issue #34227 · moby/moby · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Transitioning DockerFile and Moby Build features #34227

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
mavenugo opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Transitioning DockerFile and Moby Build features #34227

mavenugo opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 6 comments
Labels
area/builder area/project roadmap

Comments

@mavenugo
Copy link
Contributor
mavenugo commented Jul 24, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Based on the project discussions under
https://forums.mobyproject.org/t/topic-find-a-good-and-non-confusing-home-for-the-remaining-monolith/37/57

This issue is opened to track:

Moby Core aims to remove all dependencies on Docker products and Docker trademark. 
This is important for criteria 1: clarify the relationship to Docker. 
That includes removing terms like Dockerfile and docker-compose.yml from the Moby Core API 
and its specification.

This would have to be done gradually, and in a way that provides continuity for current API users. 
It would probably involve deprecating the current /build API endpoint (which badly needs an overhaul anyway) 
and either replacing it with something more flexible, or taking it out of scope entirely and 
leave it to the higher layers to implement build. 
This is the path that Kubernetes has chosen for example. There are several active projects 
implementing higher-level container build primitives decoupled from the underlying execution engine.

To be clear we should work on this in parallel to the project renaming. 
Consider this call for volunteers to propose a transition plan for Moby Core build features.
@mavenugo
Copy link
Contributor Author

#32925 is tracking the technical details of Buildkit. We can use this issue to track the transition for Moby Core build feature out of moby-core and to the downstream projects.

@tonistiigi
Copy link
Member
tonistiigi commented Jul 26, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Some more background how the buildkit integration would work with Dockerfile split.

Buildkit design already splits build definition and builder invocation. It supports a concept of frontends that are components for preparing user-friendly formats to a general purpose low-level definition.

In a simplified description, this low-level definition is a graph of build steps with multiple inputs and outputs. Only fundamental actions are supported like sandboxed execution and access to remote sources. There isn't anything Dockerfile specific in there like ENV, ARG, USER etc. All the builder functions like execution scheduling, instruction cache, import/export of data and cache etc only run on the low-level definition, meaning any other format automatically gets the same benefits.

Buildkit development happens in a separate repository. When it has matured enough to have feature parity and stability it can be integrated with Moby core API(or more generally under the umbrella of Moby APIs). Dockerfile frontend would be put to some other repository and maintaining the Dockerfile format will continue to happen there. If Docker wants, they can also have a more higher level or opinionated API in their products. The integration of buildkit with the rest of the Moby APIs also depends on the containerd integration and Moby module splitting efforts, but buildkit itself should be flexible enough not to have specific requirements on how they need to be implemented.

/cc @AkihiroSuda

@AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda mentioned this issue Jul 27, 2017
Closed
@tonistiigi tonistiigi mentioned this issue May 25, 2018
Merged
@andrewhsu
Copy link
Contributor

I think this issue has run its course. I suggest we close this issue.

@AkihiroSuda
Copy link
Member

@andrewhsu @tonistiigi

Will Dockerfile remain under moby/buildkit repo? Who are the maintainers of the Dockerfile specification?

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

I think the plan was to move the spec to its own repository at some point, but that it was easier to put it in buildkit for the time being

@liveDC

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/builder area/project roadmap
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
10 participants
@andrewhsu @tonistiigi @thaJeztah @mavenugo @AkihiroSuda @GordonTheTurtle @liveDC and others
0