Allow configuring app directory/path binaries are placed into #1403
Conversation
| entryPointBasePath string | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func validateImage(t *testing.T, img oci.SignedImage, baseLayers int64, creationTime v1.Time, opts validationOptions) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note that baseLayers being 3 in all test uses triggers the linter - as it's unrelated to the change, I didn't want to change the function to appease the linter. lmk if I should
|
This Pull Request is stale because it has been open for 90 days with |
|
@UnseenWizzard @imjasonh Could we re-open this PR? |
|
From my perspective I'm very happy to reopen this PR and make any changes needed to get in! Just let me know I just honestly got the impression from the issue discussions, that a feature like this, while relevant to a part of the user base, is not of interest to maintainers. Which is a pity. |
|
reopened, i also agree with that would be a nice feature |
UnseenWizzard
force-pushed
the
feat/allow-overwriting-app-directory
branch
from
6fa8faf to
2342b17
Compare
|
This feature would also be really nice for us, as we don't want to introduce breaking changes into existing images. What is needed to merge this feature? |
The currently hardcoded 'ko-app' app directory was used as a hardcoded string in several places in gobuild. To simplify making it overwritable, all occurances are extraced into a constant for the default value.
An option is added to overwrite the default /ko-app folder to place app binaries in. This can be set via cmd line flag or as a default in the config file.
UnseenWizzard
force-pushed
the
feat/allow-overwriting-app-directory
branch
from
2342b17 to
0795ff9
Compare
|
@cpanato change is rebased and conflicts (in docs/ only) resolved :) I'd also like to add an E2E test for this change - should that simply be added as another part of the (Btw I can't view why the license compliance check fails here but it seems to do the same on main?) |
|
We would also very much like to have this feature :) Can we do something to move this PR forward? |
|
This would be very useful to lots of projects. |
6 participants
This PR proposes a way to allow optionally modifying under which path binaries are placed inside containers built with ko - as raised in issue #944
Without deeper insight into the code base, this seems like a straightforward addition with limited impact on future maintainability to me - while allowing users migrating to ko to still place binaries in the same location as their previous Docker containers.
Looking forward to your input and any suggestions!