I agree that many users may be extending the image and would like to see
some data if possible before making this call.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 3:56 PM Vikram Koka <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hmm, what data do we have on the use of our production images?
>
> For example for 3.3 vs. other versions over the last year?
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 4:09 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I’m -5 to publishing the `-legacy` tag though. If someone wants that:
>> write your own Dockerfile and build it yourself.  Our prod image should
>> not
>> try to be everything to everyone.
>>
>> If we do not publish the legacy image, migration to 3.4 will be harder for
>> a number of current users. In the past, there were issues where people
>> used
>> the image we published.
>> Many users extend the image by adding their dependencies, which might
>> cause
>> issues. The same occurred when we migrated to Bookworm two years ago:
>> libraries and dependencies change. Tools work a bit differently.
>>
>> But yes - we might not publish the image. We could simply tell people, as
>> we have done in the past, that they can build their own image instead of
>> us
>> publishing it ourselves. I am totally open to that.
>>
>> J.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:23 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I’m +1 to just using latest Debian stable at the start of every minor
>> > release (I.e. 3.4.x will always be based on Debian 13)
>> >
>> > I’m -5 to publishing the `-legacy` tag though. If someone wants that:
>> > write your own Dockerfile and build it yourself.  Our prod image should
>> not
>> > try to be everything to everyone.
>> >
>> > -ash
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 10 Oct 2026, at 11:02, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello everyone,
>> > >
>> > > Following the discussion [1], I'd like to call for lazy consensus on
>> how
>> > > we build the CI and PROD images starting with Airflow 3.4.0:
>> > >
>> > > * 3.4.0: the CI image and the default PROD images are based on Docker
>> > >  Hardened Images (Python prebuilt by Docker) on Debian 13 "trixie".
>> > >  The base images are mirrored to ghcr.io/apache/airflow/base/python,
>> > >  so building our images needs no registry credentials.
>> > >
>> > > * 3.4.x: we still publish PROD images built the current way (Python
>> > >  compiled from sources by us on Debian 12 "bookworm"), but only under
>> a
>> > >  new "-legacy" tag suffix (e.g.
>> apache/airflow:3.4.0-python3.12-legacy),
>> > >  with a deprecation warning printed by the entrypoint.
>> > >
>> > > * 3.5.0: we drop the legacy images and bookworm entirely.
>> > >
>> > > * Testing: legacy images are not built in PRs or canary builds. A
>> weekly
>> > >  scheduled job on main builds them and runs the PROD image checks, and
>> > >  they are fully built and tested on the v3-4-test branch and before
>> > >  every 3.4.x release.
>> > >
>> > > The implementation is in https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/73038
>> .
>> > > Breeze can build either flavor ("--image-flavor hardened|legacy",
>> > > "--debian-version trixie|bookworm"); the CI image is always hardened
>> > > and trixie-based.
>> > >
>> > > Two follow-ups will occur after this one merged:
>> > >
>> > > * integrating -legacy in CI/release framework
>> > > * security: signing our images cryptographically
>> > >
>> > > The last point is the benefit of using hardened images: they are
>> already
>> > > cryptographically signed, our images can build on top of that and
>> > > will be signed as well. with provenance information
>> > > so that our users will know the images were built using our secured
>> > > environment. I will implement this change by adding
>> > > a secure environment for all parts of the release process.
>> > >
>> > > The lazy consensus will last 72 hours, until 2026-10-13 18:00 UTC. If
>> > > there are no objections by then, I will consider it accepted.
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/y0mlxsx36kzc84tn31q1kyl4rdvgv1xx
>> > >
>> > > J.
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to