-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
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
Adding Power support for image quay.io/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy at quay.io #32
Comments
I would need to double check myself, does quay support multi arch images? If so I'm happy to publish those images, but would like to avoid having to maintain multiple repositories for each arch. |
@brancz yes, I found one example of a multi arch images on quay here https://quay.io/repository/coreos/flannel?tab=tags |
That's not what I was thinking, the docker registry spec has a way to have multiple architectures under the same image+tag. |
Yes, so there are multiple ways to do this. On dockerhub they have different namespaces, so for example, for postgres, and https://hub.docker.com/_/postgres is actually the multi-arch manifest that, when pulled, will pull the correct image Steps are here https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/manifest/ Images are built here https://doi-janky.infosiftr.net/job/multiarch/ In cases where we have single namespace either image names can differ or tags can differ like in the above example. |
So that means we do still always have to maintain multiple repositories no matter what? |
Different images, will need to be built, yes. It would help to simplify things from a maintenance perspective if we can have all the docker builds going on on Travis - we have Power support for Travis and the travis.yml file for Intel / Power would essentially be the same, with only one additional flag enabled. example here https://github.com/fluent/fluentd-docker-image/blob/master/.travis.yml If this sounds like a reasonable solution, I can help with the Power changes and validation. Please suggest. |
@brancz , any thoughts on this? thank you!! |
I'm having a conversation with Kubernetes SIG auth to potentially donate this project to sig-auth, I'd prefer to hold off on this until we figure that out, as the build/publish process would likely change anyways. |
@brancz - okay, thanks for letting me know. |
Any updates on this? Would love to not have to build my own amd64/arm64/arm images. |
Bug 1885241: Bump to master (post v0.7.0)
@brancz I have a requirement for using the kube-rbac-proxy image on Power(ppc64le) architecture for IBM Cloud Operators deployment. I tried using the images available at https://quay.io/repository/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy?tab=tags and https://console.cloud.google.com/gcr/images/kubebuilder/GLOBAL/kube-rbac-proxy?gcrImageListsize=30. But it seems that the images tagged with ppc64le actually belong to amd64 arch. I checked the same for s390x image as well and that image is amd64 arch as well. I checked the CI logs @ https://github.com/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy/runs/3659930457 and found that the binaries are correctly built for each ARCH. But the make container command always pulls in the amd64 based gcr.io/distroless/static:nonroot base image. I could see two ways to fix this:
Looking at the current scenario/implementation, I prefer option 2. Please let me know your feedback, so that I can work on raising a PR. |
@brancz @s-urbaniak can you please let me know your thoughts on my comment above? |
@amitsadaphule happy to accept a PR if you have a fix. I don't have much knowledge for that archictecture. |
Thanks @s-urbaniak! Will raise a PR with the above fix shortly. |
@s-urbaniak @brancz kindly review #147. |
@s-urbaniak can you please let me know when you're planning to push out a new tag/release? I need to use that for adding Power support to IBM Cloud Operators repo. |
@s-urbaniak @brancz any update on the above? |
move username and groupname validation to apiserver-library-go
Hi All,
I have a requirement for using the kube-rbac-proxy image on Power(ppc64le) architecture for knative deployment. However, the images available here - https://quay.io/repository/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy and here https://quay.io/repository/coreos/kube-rbac-proxy?tab=tags have support for "amd64" only as seen below
docker image inspect quay.io/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy:v0.4.0 | grep Arch
"Architecture": "amd64",
I was able to build this image locally on a Power machine using "make container"
docker images | grep kube-rbac-proxy
quay.io/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy v0.4.0 6e9cecf4d991 41 minutes ago 41.2MB
docker image inspect quay.io/brancz/kube-rbac-proxy:v0.4.0 | grep Arch
"Architecture": "ppc64le",
I was looking for help in making the image @ quay.io, multi-arch, thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: