-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
RFC: Process specific env and profile.d #83
Conversation
037fcb3
to
9dfb312
Compare
thanks for picking this up. |
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure what the use case is? @jabrown85
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is that a different image at that point?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm 👍 on this RFC with the additional use case identified, but I've requested some changes and clarifications.
- 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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you detail out some of the spec changes here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. I bolded the parts I think need to change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a3e8f14
to
fcf360d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jesse Brown <jabrown85@gmail.com>
fcf360d
to
4b680bf
Compare
Readable
Derived from #72