build: accept "FROM containers-storage:" prefixes again - #6982
Merged
Luap99 merged 1 commit intoJul 21, 2026
Conversation
The change that tightened up what we would accept as a base image spec didn't expect builds to explicitly be specifying containers-storage: in image references, and yet, they sometimes do. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@redhat.com>
nalind
force-pushed
the
from-containers-storage
branch
from
July 21, 2026 14:11
60d8efa to
ae5cfd2
Compare
Contributor
|
LGTM |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
The change in #5975 that tightened up what we would accept as a base image spec didn't expect builds to explicitly be specifying "containers-storage:" in image references, and yet, they sometimes do.
How to verify it
New test!
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #6979
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?