store: Make additionalimagestores optional as layerstore source #1752
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: idleroamer The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
idleroamer
force-pushed
the
20603
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b9665b3
to
1a12d58
Compare
Optionally make additionalImageStore independently maintainable by ensuring that layers are not shared between RO and RW storages so that updating/removing RO storages won't break images in RO ones Closes: #20603 Signed-off-by: Mostafa Emami <mustafaemami@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: 😎Mostafa Emami <mustafaemami@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copy&pasting from containers/podman#20604 to preserve the comments…
| if strings.Contains(store, "|") { | ||
| parts := strings.Split(store, "|") | ||
| if len(parts) > 1 && parts[1] == "NO_REUSE" { | ||
| continue | ||
| } else { | ||
| store = strings.Split(store, "|")[0] | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can’t see how this would work; layers in these stores would be effectively invisible, but images in those stores would be visible as usual.
The immediate effect is that all images from a no-reuse store are visible but have unresolvable layers = look broken to all existing tooling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have tested the changes in 3.X branch, as part of our older software version which manifested the issue and verified basic operations. Admittedly the codebase has changed substantially and the current patch as you described doesn't work anymore.
I will check if there is still a manageable way to introduce the change in main branch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note use cases like podman history and podman image tree.
| parts := strings.Split(store, "|") | ||
| if len(parts) > 1 && parts[1] == "NO_REUSE" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can invent an infinite number of new options. Please don’t add ambiguous in-line syntaxes unless there is really no other alternative.
|
I don't see any way around increasing the complexity to introduce this feature, so I am going to close the PR for now. |
|
You could bring this up for discussion at the next Cabal meeting. |
Optionally make additionalImageStore independently maintainable by ensuring that layers are not shared between RO and RW storages so that updating/removing RO storages won't break images in RO ones
Closes: #20603