You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Productized gitsign image does not have binary installed by default. Instead it has the has tared versions of the binary for all architectures we offer:
$ gitsign version
bash: gitsign: command not found
$ ls /usr/local/bin/
gitsign_cli_darwin_amd64.gz gitsign_cli_linux_amd64.gz gitsign_cli_windows_amd64.exe.gz
$ cp /usr/local/bin/gitsign_cli_linux_amd64.gz /opt/app-root/src &&cd /opt/app-root/src
$ tar xvf gitsign_cli_linux_amd64.gz
bash: tar: command not found
If this is intentional (which I dont believe it should be) it needs to be documented on the technical information section of the product page for this image: . This further doesn't make sense to me as the image is already a linux/amd64 image, so why are we giving them an option for what architecture to run from? If its meant to be used as a builder image, it should not be listed as a Standalone Image which is defined as "A ready-to-run container image that provides services or end-user applications that you can execute in your own container environment".
Edit: follow up, these images dont even have tar so no clue how someone would unpack them.
@Gregory-Pereira This image was assembled as apart of 3, cosign,gitsign and rekor, these images are combined in sigstore-ocp and served on a web server within the cluster for download and unzipping on local machines.
@Gregory-Pereira we actually did not intend to provide a gitsign binary image in the way that you describe. The intent was to provide it via downloads only. This was primarily because I did not see the use case for gitsign in a pipeline. However, I can see the desire to at least have a functional binary on the produced image. @tommyd450 could we also include the uncompressed binary in /usr/local/bin?
Productized
gitsign
image does not have binary installed by default. Instead it has the hastar
ed versions of the binary for all architectures we offer:Image:
registry.redhat.io/rhtas-tech-preview/gitsign-rhel9@sha256:2581f2bf3cce4c20f65164083ef103319e06dc355275e8d9acfda371377bb9f5 /bin/bash
If this is intentional (which I dont believe it should be) it needs to be documented on the technical information section of the product page for this image:
. This further doesn't make sense to me as the image is already a
linux/amd64
image, so why are we giving them an option for what architecture to run from? If its meant to be used as a builder image, it should not be listed as aStandalone Image
which is defined as "A ready-to-run container image that provides services or end-user applications that you can execute in your own container environment".Edit: follow up, these images dont even have tar so no clue how someone would unpack them.
/cc @lance @tommyd450
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: