'Updating' PHP 5.5 image meta/structure

[uuf6429]

The context is that we have some projects on PHP 5.5 which we are trying get rid of, but unfortunately we need to maintain in the near-term (and in any case we need to add tests and tooling to move forward).

Unfortunately, one such part of the toolchain is buildkit, which doesn't like the extremely old image format or meta or something - I don't really know exactly what.

At the suggestion of some AI agent, I tried pulling php:5.5-apache and pushing it back to some personal docker hub account - which worked wonderfully and only took a couple of seconds. Granted, it would be useful to have someone more knowledgable in Docker confirm that this wouldn't produce any undesired side-effects.

---

So here's the big ask - would it be possible to do that on the official image to help us avoiding making a messy situation (depending on php 5.5) even worse (depending on php 5.5 in some account somewhere)?

[tianon]

This isn't exactly docker-library/official-images#16997 because this is one of the cases where for some reason our config blob got an incorrect-but-accepted-by-Docker mediaType value of application/octet-stream (https://oci.dag.dev/?image=php:5.5-apache@sha256:be7f9332d3bea49084d74a0718a5400f7b5d128c1937575e76f72df3a41e8eac), not a schema1 image, but the same complexities apply to fixing it -- we won't be pulling and pushing because that will update the "updated at" metadata for the tag on Docker Hub, so if you've got a tool which is being too picky about this image, pulling and pushing your own "fixed" copy of it somewhere is a correct solution.

Realistically, I would suggest that if you have a non-trivial and potentially long-term dependency on this long-since-end-of-life PHP version that you should try building your own updated image so that at least most of the image can have security updates.

[uuf6429]

Realistically, I would suggest that if you have a non-trivial and potentially long-term dependency on this long-since-end-of-life PHP version that you should try building your own updated image so that at least most of the image can have security updates.

We're not using the image in production, it's only used temporarily in CI, so those kinds of security concerns aren't very important in this case.

Anyway, it's a bit disappointing but I understand.