media-types.md: clarify differences from Docker media types #817
Conversation
|
@dmcgowan @tonistiigi @ktock PTAL |
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
from
e77583e
to
008d344
Compare
media-types.md
Outdated
| - `.mediaType`: only present on Docker | ||
| - `.annotations`: only present on OCI | ||
| - `.[]manifests.annotations`: only present on OCI | ||
| - `.[]manifests.platform`: ARM v6 is represented as `{"architecture":"arm","variant":"v6"}` on OCI, while represented as `{"variant:armv6l"}` on Docker |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be a mistake in https://github.com/distribution/distribution/pull/1592/files#diff-6b5275ccafa2776e05d590a9e729b0ec6762300317c928d34adc856d9f11714fR108, right? I'm quite sure no implementation has ever supported anything like armv6l. Quotes are wrong as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just fix that erroneous example in upstream. No need to copy it around more. Afaics platform was moved to OCI exactly how it was implemented in Docker (with all the os.* weirdnesses). Theoretically, you can use any value in there. OCI spec even makes it clear that it is implementation-defined. The values that OCI recommends for arm are the same values that Docker uses (and used before that docs example was changed to an invalid value).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed the note about .[]manifests.platform and opened PR distribution/distribution#3371 for fixing Docker spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same for StopSignal Labels. These are not OCI concepts but copied from Docker. The fix is to update docs where needed. Issue with these fields seems to be that Docker reuses container.Config struct in here that is documented under API docs and needs to be kept in sync with your docs link.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to remove StopSignal and Labels
The fix is to update docs where needed.
Do we need to update all v1.md, v1.1.md, and v1.2.md in https://github.com/moby/moby/tree/v20.10.8/image/spec ? Or maybe we should have v1.2.1.md?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need to increase version. If you want, you can look at the publish date for the old ones as I do think at least most of them are very old but just updating v1.2 is good enough for me.
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
from
008d344
to
705b1fa
Compare
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
from
705b1fa
to
e57b202
Compare
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
from
e57b202
to
cb8a8b3
Compare
AkihiroSuda
requested review from
brendandburns,
jonboulle,
jonjohnsonjr,
jstarks,
stevvooe and
vbatts
as code owners
|
rebased |
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
2 times, most recently
from
38bb9a8
to
13b8355
Compare
OCI media types are slightly different from Docker ones, e.g., Docker manifests must have `.mediaType` field while OCI may not have. Also, OCI descriptors may have `.annotations` while Docker may not. Also updates to compare the spec with Docker Image Spec v1.2, not v1.0. OCI Image Spec v1 is more akin to Docker Image Spec v1.2 rather than v1.0, which lacked content addressability. See also https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/v20.10.1/image/spec/README.md for differencces between Docker Image Spec v1.2 and v1.0. Signed-off-by: Akihiro Suda <akihiro.suda.cz@hco.ntt.co.jp>
AkihiroSuda
force-pushed
the
docker-oci-diff
branch
from
13b8355
to
08dd547
Compare
OCI media types are slightly different from Docker ones,
e.g., Docker manifests must have
.mediaTypefield while OCI may not have.Also, OCI descriptors may have
.annotationswhile Docker may not.