-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
Contractual build plan #52
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
buildpack.md
Outdated
For a given buildpack group, | ||
- If a required buildpack provides a dependency that is not required by the same buildpack or a subsequent buildpack, the group MUST fail to detect. | ||
- If a required buildpack requires a dependency that is not provided by the same buildpack or a previous buildpack, the group MUST fail to detect. | ||
- If an optional buildpack provides a dependency that is not required by the same buildpack or a subsequent buildpack, it MUST be excluded from the build phase and its requires and provides MUST be excluded from the Build Plan. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we clarify that "it" (as in "it MUST be excluded") is the optional buildpack, and not the thing that was provided?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done :)
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
@hone updated to match dist spec requirements. Awaiting approval 😄 |
name = "<dependency name>" | ||
version = "<dependency version>" | ||
|
||
[requires.metadata] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
according to the Contractual Build Plan RFC, requires
doesn't have a metadata section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch (assuming you mean provides
). Fixed :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good, besides the extra metadata
in the buildplan TOML.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
RFC PR: buildpacks/rfcs#12
Lifecycle PR: buildpacks/lifecycle#149