Skip to content
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

[FEATURE]: Add Buildpacks.io builder #344

Open
hany opened this issue May 3, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by kubero-dev/kubero-operator#36
Open

[FEATURE]: Add Buildpacks.io builder #344

hany opened this issue May 3, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by kubero-dev/kubero-operator#36
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request in progress working on it

Comments

@hany
Copy link

hany commented May 3, 2024

Description

I understand that the use of the term "buildpacks" used by Kubero is not the same as the concepts Cloud Native Buildpacks.io (CNB) brings. We've been using CNB's for some time, and appreciate its simplicity and auto-detection capabilities. It's quite flexible and configurable (for example, being able to specify versions of the languages used, or having it auto-detect the version based on standard files from the repo). For example, here are the various supported package management capabilities for Python-based apps:

https://paketo.io/docs/howto/python/#use-a-package-manager

Or auto-detection of Ruby versions:

https://paketo.io/docs/howto/ruby/#override-the-detected-ruby-version

Has there been any thoughts for adding or utilizing Buildpacks.io or Paketo? It may alleviate the need to maintain a repo for the various "buildpacks" and utilize a common framework.

Possible solution

Utilizing Buildpacks.io or Paketo.io for buildpacks instead of maintaining a Kubero Buildpacks Repo.

Alternatives

No response

Additional information

No response

@mms-gianni
Copy link
Member

Actually, I'm working on that one using https://github.com/buildpacks-community/kpack as an option.

The Kubero "buildpack" naming is misleading. This will be the first thing to change.

@mms-gianni mms-gianni added the enhancement New feature or request label May 3, 2024
@hany
Copy link
Author

hany commented May 3, 2024

Actually, I'm working on that one using https://github.com/buildpacks-community/kpack as an option.

The Kubero "buildpack" naming is misleading. This will be the first thing to change.

That's great! Is there a place where we can follow your progress on this one?

@mms-gianni
Copy link
Member

@hany I've just started to work on this topic for version 2.4.0

I did manage to build and push an image with kpacks. However, there is still an issue on how to handle the finished build. There for I plan to create a separate job to handle that. This is managed in a separate image and repository.

https://github.com/kubero-dev/deployer

@mms-gianni
Copy link
Member

Kubero will get a whole new CRD (api) to handle builds. This has a lot of benefits. It will be possible to store build logs, list all builds, and reset to an older build.

Kubero Runbuilds won't be affected and keep working as usual. But I tend to focus kubero on image building.

Next step was to cleanup the registry configuration and prepare it for kpacks
kubero-dev/kubero-operator@69ab305

@mms-gianni
Copy link
Member

mms-gianni commented Jun 8, 2024

closed by accident with the merge

I'm still working on this topic and making progress. The Operator is mostly done. UI needs some more improvements.

I am currently struggling with building with kpacks on my local installation.

@mms-gianni mms-gianni reopened this Jun 8, 2024
@mms-gianni mms-gianni added the in progress working on it label Jun 9, 2024
@mms-gianni mms-gianni changed the title [FEATURE]: Utilize Buildpacks.io [FEATURE]: Add Buildpacks.io builder Jun 9, 2024
@mms-gianni mms-gianni self-assigned this Jun 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request in progress working on it
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants