Skip to content

Support multi-arch image/artifact push #1053

Closed
#1514
Closed
Support multi-arch image/artifact push#1053
#1514
Assignees
FeynmanZhouwangxiaoxuan273
Labels
enhancementNew feature or requestmulti-archspec requiredIssues that require specifications
Milestone
v1.3.0-beta.3
@sajayantony

Description

@sajayantony
sajayantony
opened on Aug 8, 2023

What is the version of your ORAS CLI

1.0.0

What would you like to be added?

As artifacts become increasingly accepted, it would be useful for ORAS to support multi-arch artifacts as well.
There are already some standard conventions of tools like homebrew implementing this.

Multi-arch manifest below - https://explore.ggcr.dev/?image=ghcr.io%2Fhomebrew%2Fcore%2Foras:1.0.1

{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "manifests": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:d0e42e6f6d564a9d1e178e72b42ff12b7e2e3c36cd32b44b150f7465c171db41",
      "size": 1914,
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "arm64",
        "os": "darwin",
        "os.version": "macOS 12.6"
      },
      "annotations": {
        "org.opencontainers.image.ref.name": "1.0.1.arm64_monterey",
        "sh.brew.bottle.digest": "8690763d0a9d0be6574ee4cfdb8edbab302f232c8056bae2d0083f170719afed",
        "sh.brew.bottle.size": "3436422",
        "sh.brew.tab": "{\"homebrew_version\":\"4.1.4-6-ga8022e6\",\"changed_files\":[],\"source_modified_time\":1691075089,\"compiler\":\"clang\",\"runtime_dependencies\":[],\"arch\":\"arm64\",\"built_on\":{\"os\":\"Macintosh\",\"os_version\":\"macOS 12.6\",\"cpu_family\":\"dunno\",\"xcode\":\"14.2\",\"clt\":\"14.2.0.0.1.1668646533\",\"preferred_perl\":\"5.30\"}}"
      }
    },

Each binary is uploaded with the following manifest

 oras manifest get --pretty ghcr.io/homebrew/core/oras@sha256:d0e42e6f6d564a9d1e178e72b42ff12b7e2e3c36cd32b44b150f7465c171db41
{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "config": {
    "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.config.v1+json",
    "digest": "sha256:0e7e738a321110bc395c82868cd93c6dbd0e4afa7b8931f08a6039ed59544249",
    "size": 222
  },
  "layers": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.layer.v1.tar+gzip",
      "digest": "sha256:8690763d0a9d0be6574ee4cfdb8edbab302f232c8056bae2d0083f170719afed",
      "size": 3436422,
      "annotations": {
        "org.opencontainers.image.title": "oras--1.0.1.arm64_monterey.bottle.tar.gz"
      }
    }
  ],
  "annotations": {
    "com.github.package.type": "homebrew_bottle",
    "org.opencontainers.image.created": "2023-08-07",
    "org.opencontainers.image.description": "OCI Registry As Storage",
    "org.opencontainers.image.documentation": "https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/oras",
    "org.opencontainers.image.license": "Apache-2.0",
    "org.opencontainers.image.ref.name": "1.0.1.arm64_monterey",
    "org.opencontainers.image.revision": "7716dfd65ccfe0502f5acfc35b3e8c6aa4cc52b1",
    "org.opencontainers.image.source": "https://github.com/homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/7716dfd65ccfe0502f5acfc35b3e8c6aa4cc52b1/Formula/oras.rb",
    "org.opencontainers.image.title": "oras 1.0.1.arm64_monterey",
    "org.opencontainers.image.url": "https://github.com/oras-project/oras",
    "org.opencontainers.image.vendor": "homebrew",
    "org.opencontainers.image.version": "1.0.1",
    "sh.brew.bottle.digest": "8690763d0a9d0be6574ee4cfdb8edbab302f232c8056bae2d0083f170719afed",
    "sh.brew.bottle.size": "3436422",
    "sh.brew.tab": "{\"homebrew_version\":\"4.1.4-6-ga8022e6\",\"changed_files\":[],\"source_modified_time\":1691075089,\"compiler\":\"clang\",\"runtime_dependencies\":[],\"arch\":\"arm64\",\"built_on\":{\"os\":\"Macintosh\",\"os_version\":\"macOS 12.6\",\"cpu_family\":\"dunno\",\"xcode\":\"14.2\",\"clt\":\"14.2.0.0.1.1668646533\",\"preferred_perl\":\"5.30\"}}"
  }
}

Why is this needed for ORAS?

ORAS does not have CLI commands to author a manifest. Being able to author this multi arch manifest or index-based manifest would enable artifact authors to use ORAS CLI for scenarios like above.

Things to keep in mind

  1. Multi-arch platform property is one way for clients to determine the artifact. This is already supported in ORAS throught the --platform flag.
  2. Clients can choose to use annotations or any custom filter from index.
  3. There could be an ability for clients to compose the manifest using a tag and add more artifacts in a multi step script and finally copy the full index and related manifests in one shot.

Composotion

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant LocalRegistry as Local Store
    participant RemoteRegistry as Remote Registry

    User->>LocalRegistry: Begin creation of artifact with tag mybinary:v1 for amd64 linux
    Note right of LocalRegistry: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64) initiated

    User->>LocalRegistry: Add binary for a different platform (e.g. arm64)
    Note right of LocalRegistry: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64, linux/arm64) updated

    User->>LocalRegistry: Add binary with a different annotation
    Note right of LocalRegistry: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64, linux/arm64, annotations)

    User->>RemoteRegistry: Copy artifact mybinary:v1 from Local Registry
    Note right of RemoteRegistry: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64, linux/arm64, annotations)
Loading

Appending

Consider appending a remote manifest and add a new item to the index

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant RemoteRegistry1 as Local Store
    participant RemoteRegistry2 as Remote Registry

    User->>RemoteRegistry1: Inspect artifact with tag mybinary:v1
    Note right of RemoteRegistry1: GET manifest details of mybinary:v1

    User->>User: Determine modifications without pulling full artifact

    User->>RemoteRegistry1: Add binary for a different platform (e.g. linux/arm64) directly
    Note right of RemoteRegistry1: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64, linux/arm64)  updated

    User->>RemoteRegistry: Copy artifact mybinary:v1 from Local Registry
    Note right of RemoteRegistry2: Artifact: mybinary:v1 (linux/amd64, linux/arm64) updated
Loading

Note

  • Currently Index implementations don't support artifactType in some registries and hence we should consider if tools need this even through it will be a part of the image spec.
  • Index support subject and we should consider how we will support subject properties to link and index to another artifact.

/cc @siggy

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

enhancementNew feature or requestmulti-archspec requiredIssues that require specifications

Type

No type

Fields

No fields configured for issues without a type.

Projects

No projects

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions