oci_image isn't setting architecture in the image config section
#117
Comments
|
Confirmed in my example that the image content was
package main
import (
"fmt"
"runtime"
)
func main() {
println(fmt.Sprintf("Hello, from %s/%s!", runtime.GOOS, runtime.GOARCH))
}Setup: sudo apt-get install qemu binfmt-support qemu-user-static
docker run --rm --privileged multiarch/qemu-user-static --reset -p yes
REF=localhost:5000/examples/go/hello:latest_linux_aarch64
crane config "$REF" | jq '.architecture = "arm64"' | crane edit config "$REF"Tests: $ bazel run //examples/go/hello
INFO: Invocation ID: 5bdc5b4a-787a-4550-9e66-50e9d3d71a82
INFO: Analyzed target //examples/go/hello:hello (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured).
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //examples/go/hello:hello up-to-date:
bazel-bin/examples/go/hello/hello_/hello
INFO: Elapsed time: 0.145s, Critical Path: 0.00s
INFO: 1 process: 1 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 1 total action
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/examples/go/hello/hello_/hello
Hello, from linux/amd64!
$ docker run --rm --platform linux/arm64 localhost:5000/examples/go/hello:latest_linux_aarch64
Hello, from linux/arm64!
$ docker run --rm localhost:5000/examples/go/hello:latest_linux_x86_64
Hello, from linux/amd64! |
|
When you got a base image in your oci_image, oci_image automatically uses base image's arch and os. basically, This is a silent error we should handle better. either we say that the base image's |
|
The explanation sort of makes sense, but the devex doesn't. So I'm assuming the image example only works since it is statically linked and doesn't depend on anything else? AFAICT, I pointed to a multi-arch (Docker list style due to other issue since distroless went OCI in March). My expectation is that oci_image would use os and arch to transition the base dependency to that os/arch -- the tar content already was transitioned. Maybe oci_image should have platform parameter instead of os/architecture to do all transitions for me? I don't think I should have to multiple oci_pull single os/arch images? |
|
i agree about the DX point. since there is no transition on |
thesayyn
added
documentation
|
|
Ah, thanks! Was just about to ask the question for that -- I can see |
|
My updated target's pushed images work without modification now, although I haven't tried any binaries that are dynamically linked to distro libraries yet: [oci_image(
name = "hello_image_{}".format(platform),
architecture = "{}".format(attrs["arch"]),
base = "@distroless_base_linux_{}".format(attrs["arch"]),
entrypoint = ["/examples/go/hello/hello_/hello"],
env = {
"image_arch": "{}".format(attrs["arch"]),
"image_os": "linux",
},
os = "linux",
tars = [
":hello_tar_{}".format(platform),
],
) for platform, attrs in PLATFORMS.items()]Yes, some documentation about the multi-image labels that could be used from |
|
Sorry to resurrect this one. It doesn't seem that the information here is correct still or maybe i am just doing it wrong but I don't see those repos being created with the Follow up: these look to be the way you have to do this today. |
|
@michaelschuett-tomtom we still generate platform specific repos for multi platform images. |
Haven't had a chance to debug
image.sh.tplyet, but it doesn't seem thatarchitectureis being set in the images while anenvwith the values to debug this issue does show up:WORKSPACE
BUILD.bazel
Note how
architectureisamd64, butEnv.image_archenv was set toarm64usingregctl image inspect localhost:5000/examples/go/hello:latest_linux_aarch64:{ "created": "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z", "author": "Bazel", "architecture": "amd64", "os": "linux", "config": { "User": "0", "Env": [ "PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/busybox", "SSL_CERT_FILE=/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt", "image_os=linux", "image_arch=arm64" ], "Entrypoint": [ "/examples/go/hello/hello_/hello" ], "WorkingDir": "/" }, "rootfs": { "type": "layers", "diff_ids": [ "sha256:cb60fb9b862c6a89f92e484bc3b72bbc0352b41166df5c4a68bfb52f52504a7d", "sha256:f38a81323cd8a2d7636775c206e494eb1cdad64d2b008967be69a134eb4a736b", "sha256:6998679213707b9968867d5627bfa0f77da0baad13d2120ce41d0606c8f9d591", "sha256:e83d4114481dc897d49d5a9a8b68bf71c4f08f1a5c1adff44603c56b958fed53", "sha256:be43041c1d44a317622939fc256141b51ece61fa5264aca8cf561ee331f9bba0" ] }, "history": [ { "created": "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z", "created_by": "bazel build ...", "author": "Bazel" }, { "created": "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z", "created_by": "bazel build ...", "author": "Bazel" }, { "created": "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z", "created_by": "bazel build ...", "author": "Bazel" }, { "created": "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z", "created_by": "bazel build ...", "author": "Bazel" }, { "created": "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" } ] }Using
bazel aqueryit can be seen that theplatformis being properly passed for use bycrane:Despite its actual contents, Docker will refuse to run it for
linux/arm64:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: