-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
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.
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
About buildpack builder image, we may need to switch to docker.io instead of gcr.io #404
Comments
Thanks Zoe, pls help verify the SHA1 value of two images, if they are same and Paketo community says docker.io is official one, then let us provide the PR to switch that one. Thanks! |
@zhangtbj
And docker.io one is using Also I found docker.io had many OS-level dependencies. I don't compare which package is different included in cflinuxfs3 with bionic. Because it's too many. But I found cflinuxfs3 has 119 packages and bionic for build has 181 packages. So I assume above difference cause bionic has less vulnerability issues than cflinuxfs3. For
And for docker.io one
|
@xiujuan95 thanks a lot, this is helpful. I asked one more question to the paketo folks, then I think we can move to the new images. |
By communicating with paketo guys, they said this one
index.docker.io/paketobuildpacks/builder:full
is an official one in the future instead ofgcr.io/paketo-buildpacks/builder:latest
. More details, pls refer to here.So maybe we should change to
index.docker.io/paketobuildpacks/builder:full
in our buildstrategy.But first, we should verify docker.io image works fine for us.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: