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

Create 0000-creator-skip-sbom.md #302

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2023

Conversation

kritkasahni-google
Copy link
Contributor

@buildpack-bot
Copy link
Member

Maintainers,

As you review this RFC please queue up issues to be created using the following commands:

/queue-issue <repo> "<title>" [labels]...
/unqueue-issue <uid>

Issues

(none)

Comment on lines +92 to +95
We already support enabling CNB_SKIP_LAYERS in /cnb/lifecycle/analyzer and /cnb/lifecycle/restorer, and CNB_SKIP_RESTORE in /cnb/lifecycle/creator.
* CNB_SKIP_LAYERS in /cnb/lifecycle/analyzer to skip restoring SBOM from previous app image.
* CNB_SKIP_LAYERS in /cnb/lifecycle/restorer to skip reusing previous app image layers entirely.
* CNB_SKIP_RESTORE in /cnb/lifecycle/creator to skips restoring SBOM plus all other layers entirely from previous app image.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the future it might be clearer if there were only two inputs - CNB_SKIP_LAYERS for buildpack layer directories, and CNB_SKIP_SBOM for the SBOM layer. We could deprecate CNB_SKIP_LAYERS in the analyzer and CNB_SKIP_RESTORE in the creator to keep everything consistent. But, that may be more effort than it's worth.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah - I think CNB_SKIP_RESTORE could be great. I don't want to go wild with options if we think they would likely both be set the same by platforms.

@natalieparellano natalieparellano merged commit a0350f2 into buildpacks:main Dec 12, 2023
68 of 70 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
scope/team RFC scoped to a sub-team as opposed to the entire project. spec/platform status/voting team/implementation type/rfc
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants