Any chance of changing the whiteout file approach?

[timthelion]

It seems unfortunate that a new standard should use a method which unecesarilly limits the standard. With the .wh file approach, base images can no longer contain arbitrary data. This means, for example, that you cannot have an image with example OCI image-spec data stored in it. Is there any possibility of changing this to use, for example, a white out list instead. So that the files that made a layer would be:

VERSION
layer.tar
whiteouts
json

That would mean that truely arbitrary data could be stored in the images, which would be really nice :)

[vbatts]

To be clear, you are saying that the .wh approach is limited? And the
whiteout file is preferred?

If so, I agree.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 17:16 Timothy Hobbs notifications@github.com wrote:

It seems unfortunate that a new standard should use a method which
unecesarilly limits the standard. With the .wh file approach, base images
can no longer contain arbitrary data. This means, for example, that you
cannot have an image with example OCI image-spec data stored in it. Is
there any possibility of changing this to use, for example, a white out
list instead. So that the files that made a layer would be:

VERSION
layer.tar
whiteouts
json

That would mean that truely arbitrary data could be stored in the images,
which would be really nice :)

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24

[timthelion]

Creating a list of files to be whited out, and keeping that outside of layer.tar is better than putting .wh files in layer.tar. We wouldn't want a situation like this: http://git-annex.branchable.com/forum/Storing_git_repos_in_git-annex/

[vbatts]

I wholly agree and intend to see it done as a whiteout file list.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 17:26 Timothy Hobbs notifications@github.com wrote:

Creating a list of files to be whited out, and keeping that outside of
layer.tar is better than putting .wh files in layer.tar. We wouldn't want
a situation like this:
http://git-annex.branchable.com/forum/Storing_git_repos_in_git-annex/

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment)

[philips]

I think this is something we should think about for post v1.0.0. I whole heartedly agree but in the ideal case the initial v1 serialization spec is binary compatible with the existing docker serialization to save the sanity of all of the existing registry folks like acr, gcr.io, Quay, Hub, etc.

[timthelion]

Would it be possible to use the whiteout list file IFF a whiteout list file exists, and otherwise use the .wh approach?

[philips]

@timthelion Yes, that would be the right way of approaching it. It would be a schema bump which would be a version break. Happy to consider adding this feature to fix the issue but I do want to hold off until we get post v1.0.0 (in a couple of months).

[timthelion]

@philips so basically, you want to have the 1.0 release be supported by Docker/CoreOS/whatever, without actually haven't to change Docker/CoreOS/whatever's code? Basically, there will be no actual technical changes to the spec before 1.0?

[cyphar]

@timthelion No breaking technical changes.