Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ci: migrate to GitHub Container Registry #82

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

andyholmes
Copy link
Contributor

Migrate the container images from DockerHub to GitHub's container
registry.

This pull request also bumps the related Docker GitHub Actions and
makes the source of Fedora's base image explicit.

fixes #60

@andyholmes
Copy link
Contributor Author

andyholmes commented Jun 21, 2022

I believe this is all correct. Note that the Flatpak Builder test can't succeed until the PR is actually merged, because the images aren't available until after (See: successful test in my fork).

The worflows use github.actor and github.repository in some places (rather than bilelmoussaoui), to allow contributors to have those images build/push in their forks. This shouldn't pose any problems for the distributed GitHub Actions, though.

@bilelmoussaoui
Copy link
Member

So before we actually land this one, I think we should ship one single image that provides the basic tools to build/deploy a flatpak application without any pre-configured remotes. Then flathub could provide a set of images itself that contains the various SDKs combinations that would be built on top of the basic image provided by the actions itself.

We would still document the availabilities of such images in the readme as well as keep the current images up to date for a while, so I would add a new job instead of modifying current ones.

As we moved to the flatpak namespace, i want to keep it clear that flatpak is not tied to flathub and can be used with other remotes if desired.

@andyholmes
Copy link
Contributor Author

So before we actually land this one, I think we should ship one single image that provides the basic tools to build/deploy a flatpak application without any pre-configured remotes.

So I guess what you mean is more or less the Dockerfile in the root directory, but basically just a baredbones ontop of fedora:latest?

FROM registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:latest

RUN dnf update -y && \
    dnf install -y flatpak flatpak-builder python3-aiohttp python3-tenacity python3-gobject xorg-x11-server-Xvfb ccache zstd && \
    dnf clean all

ADD https://raw.githubusercontent.com/flatpak/flat-manager/master/flat-manager-client /usr/bin
RUN chmod +x /usr/bin/flat-manager-client

If so, I can open a PR with a new Dockerfile and workflow that pushes it to ghcr.io. Or did you mean the existing image as-is, just with no SDKs actually installed?

In some cases the docker.io source lags behind upstream, so be explicit
about where the image should come from.
* bump `docker/build-push-action` to v3
* bump `docker/login-action` to v2
* bump `docker/setup-buildx-action` to v2
* bump `docker/setup-qemu-action` to v2
Migrate the container images from DockerHub to GitHub's container
registry.

fixes flatpak#60
@andyholmes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, closing this one in favour of #101.

@andyholmes andyholmes closed this Oct 18, 2022
@andyholmes andyholmes deleted the migrate-to-ghcr branch April 3, 2023 16:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Move the images from docker to github packages
3 participants