Conversation
eb1ec17 to
c615a79
Compare
c615a79 to
e073215
Compare
|
cc @estesp @dmcgowan @sudo-bmitch These are just some arbitrary limits, and probably should be discussed to see what limits we think are reasonable. We could also consider adding a new
My main goal with this PR was to prevent situations where (e.g.) Maybe it's also worth considering defining a list of "well-known" os-features as part of the OCI specs somewhere; this preserves the existing flexibility (not all features have to be "well-known"), but could define that implementers MAY omit, ignore, or discard options not in the "well-known" list. |
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
e073215 to
328b4b4
Compare
|
I think its reasonable to add some limits here. I don't think its up to this project to default "well-known" ones, right now only "win32k" is defined in oci-spec and thats the only one we may need special logic for. Otherwise, this list should be small, large numbers of these in images would make them difficult to find a match anyway. |
Add some limits to os-features
Baseline -> #30 -> this PR;
Compared to baseline (before #30)
Details