RFC: Process specific env and profile.d #83
Conversation
jabrown85
force-pushed
the
jab/process-specific-env
branch
from
037fcb3
to
9dfb312
Compare
|
thanks for picking this up. |
jabrown85
force-pushed
the
jab/process-specific-env
branch
from
77a6287
to
564e539
Compare
|
Final Comment Period with merge disposition, closing on 10 June, 2020. |
| [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
|
||
| - Should this idea be extended to `bin`, `lib`, and any other buildpack output intended for launch? | ||
| - Should lifecycle ignore invalid entries like `<layers>/<layer>/env.build/web/NODE_OPTIONS`? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if it should just error instead of silently ignoring it.
| # Unresolved Questions | ||
| [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
|
||
| - Should this idea be extended to `bin`, `lib`, and any other buildpack output intended for launch? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what the use case is? @jabrown85
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A user might want to add a credential helper binary for web but not have that accessible for debug. They could put the binary at bin/web/credential-helper to achieve this if we decided to allow this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is that a different image at that point?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure. I think it's reasonable to think that perhaps a web process is restricted to having access to something in bin/lib that perhaps you wouldn't want to be immediately accessible for non-defined launcher executions /cnb/lifecycle/launcher -- bash for instance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I guess without changing the image it's still technically there. I'm happy to mark this as out of scope of the RFC unless you feel strongly about it.
| - Should lifecycle ignore invalid entries like `<layers>/<layer>/env.build/web/NODE_OPTIONS`? | ||
|
|
||
| # Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL) | ||
| [spec-changes]: #spec-changes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you detail out some of the spec changes here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. I bolded the parts I think need to change.
jabrown85
force-pushed
the
jab/process-specific-env
branch
from
a3e8f14
to
fcf360d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jesse Brown <jabrown85@gmail.com>
jabrown85
force-pushed
the
jab/process-specific-env
branch
from
fcf360d
to
4b680bf
Compare
Readable
Derived from #72