RFC: DNS Label Compatible Process Types - #329
Open
joshwlewis wants to merge 16 commits into
Open
Conversation
Member
|
Maintainers, As you review this RFC please queue up issues to be created using the following commands: Issues(none) |
joshwlewis
force-pushed
the
subdomain-processes
branch
from
March 31, 2025 02:05
7f91b08 to
4ddb64a
Compare
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
joshwlewis
force-pushed
the
subdomain-processes
branch
from
March 31, 2025 02:09
4ddb64a to
3f41cfd
Compare
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
joshwlewis
force-pushed
the
subdomain-processes
branch
from
March 31, 2025 03:49
e2aacb4 to
b8ecf24
Compare
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
joshwlewis
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
joshwlewis
force-pushed
the
subdomain-processes
branch
from
April 1, 2025 08:38
19c6879 to
a281ca6
Compare
joshwlewis
marked this pull request as ready for review
April 1, 2025 09:14
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rune Soerensen <runesoerensen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Josh W Lewis <josh.w.lewis@gmail.com>
dmikusa
reviewed
Apr 10, 2025
dmikusa
reviewed
Apr 10, 2025
Contributor
|
Do we still want to proceed with this? (I think it's worth doing) |
Contributor
I'd be good with pushing this forward. It seems like a sensible thing to align naming restrictions against. I put it in ready for review status so I won't forget to bring it up next meeting I attend |
jkutner
reviewed
Jul 27, 2026
|
|
||
| # Migration | ||
|
|
||
| This is a breaking API change, and will require a new Buildpack API version. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered asking if there's a way would could instead define a mapping, or substitution thing, where we convert incompatible process types to compatible ones. But that could mean, in theory, two process types get mapped to the same thing. I think we just want to avoid that as much.
jkutner
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2026
jkutner
reviewed
Jul 27, 2026
|
|
||
| Buildpacks specifying process types that do not comply with the stricter requirements proposed in this RFC will need to change the way process types are defined. Buildpacks defining process types dynamically should implement logic to coerce process types (by substitution, filtering and/or truncation) to meet the specification and avoid build failures. | ||
|
|
||
| In order to ease the transition, a new flag may be introduced to pack and/or lifecycle to control enforcement of this requirement. For example, a `--strict-process-types` flag could be introduced that might be set to `warn` or `error`. Calls with `pack build foo --strict-process-types=error ...` would emit error messages and reject builds with non-compliant process types while calls with `pack build foo --strict-process-types=warn ...` would emit warning messages while still allowing the build to complete. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we could reuse CNB_DEPRECATION_MODE instead of a new --strict-process-types flag? (RFCs 0049 lines 79–95, and 0110 lines 107–110 already define warn/error/silent
semantics)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rendered