Conversation
6058310 to
9e2adc3
Compare
e6bc7b7 to
ab9657c
Compare
ab9657c to
1f88cb3
Compare
ee201e2 to
718663d
Compare
tonistiigi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add more docs? I'm not sure what standalone mode means and what cases I would want to use it.
e2b514f to
8e47826
Compare
|
@tonistiigi Added a section in the README about this use case and also a job in our ci workflow to check this behavior: https://github.com/docker/setup-buildx-action/runs/5997903516?check_suite_focus=true |
tonistiigi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a point in making it configurable or should it just be an automatic fallback if there is no docker or accessing docker buildx fails while buildx binary exists?
README.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can add "mode. In this case buildx binary is invoked directly, instead of calling it as a docker plugin."
Good point, I guess we can do that. |
0b02f3b to
a656177
Compare
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com>
tonistiigi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the build-push action support the same thing?
Not yet, will work on it. |
In in the future we might want to use buildx in standalone mode.
Also display buildx version being used as suggested in docker/buildx#850 (comment)
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com