чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 11:32, Matwey V. Kornilov <[email protected]>:
>
> чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 11:27, Adrian Schröter <[email protected]>:
> >
> > On Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2020, 09:17:49 CET Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> > > чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 11:15, Adrian Schröter <[email protected]>:
> > > >
> > > > On Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2020, 09:13:24 CET Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> > > > > чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 11:12, Adrian Schröter <[email protected]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2020, 18:07:56 CET Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here (https://registry.opensuse.org/cgi-bin/cooverview ) I see
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > opensuse/tubmleweed multiplatform docker image supports the
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > platforms:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aarch64
> > > > > > > armv6l
> > > > > > > i586
> > > > > > > ppc64le
> > > > > > > x86_64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, armv7l is missed for some reason. How could we get it
> > > > > > > back?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The docker registry only knows "arm" and "arm64". So armv6l is
> > > > > > overwriting armv7hl :/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guillaume and me decided to unpublish armv6l for now until we found
> > > > > > a solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Renaming the image is bad for references, so I guess we need to
> > > > > > publish armv6l in a
> > > > > > different repository.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fabian, do you have an opinion here?
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember, that once I saw that correct docker platform names are
> > > > > linux/arm/v6 and linux/arm/v7
> > > >
> > > > you mean having it in a different repository? yes, that was my
> > > > proposal as well.
> > >
> > > No, I mean docker platform names. Look here:
> > >
> > > https://www.docker.com/blog/getting-started-with-docker-for-arm-on-linux/
> > >
> > > Docker people use "Platform: linux/arm64" for aarch64 and "Platform:
> > > linux/arm/v7" for armv7.
> >
> > Hm, can you find a real life example in any registry?
> >
>
> > docker run mplatform/mquery postgres
> Image: postgres
> * Manifest List: Yes
> * Supported platforms:
> - linux/amd64
> - linux/arm/v5
> - linux/arm/v7
> - linux/arm64
> - linux/386
> - linux/ppc64le
> - linux/s390x
>
> > docker run mplatform/mquery ubuntu
> Image: ubuntu
> * Manifest List: Yes
> * Supported platforms:
> - linux/amd64
> - linux/arm/v7
> - linux/arm64
> - linux/386
> - linux/ppc64le
> - linux/s390x
>
I am sorry. You are right here. It seems that "v7" after "arm" is a
"variant" not "architecture":
"platform": {
"architecture": "arm",
"os": "linux",
"variant": "v7"
}
However, as a user, I anyway have to use the full platform specification string:
docker run --platform=linux/arm/v7
> > I like to look at the manifest, because I have no clue atm how this
> > platform string
> > is stored there. It should look like
> >
> > "platform" : {
> > "architecture" : "amd64",
> > "os" : "linux"
> > }
> >
> > but architecture is limited to "Go" architectures which only knows "arm"...
> >
> > They may (mis)use the version string for this?
> >
> > Maybe an option...
> >
> > --
> >
> > Adrian Schroeter <[email protected]>
> > Build Infrastructure Project Manager
> >
> > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
> > Germany
> > (HRB 247165, AG München), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Matwey V. Kornilov
--
With best regards,
Matwey V. Kornilov
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
