We’ve had a few general conversations about this, and I’d love to hear the community’s feedback on this idea. tl;dr: What do people think about trying to define a “specification for reproducible repositories” to standardize across projects and organizations? Right now, repo2docker has no “official…

I know a lot of people that would be interesting in helping to create an open standard for this. It is exactly the type of thing that should be an open standard/spec–the true benefit is only realized if everyone starts to use it. Good news from the binder/repo2docker side of things - in the recent d…

How did the notebook spec / kernel protocol / etc process look? Was that a process done in a similar fashion? Perhaps this is something that the Binder Project can help push forward, though right now I don’t think we have the resources/cycles to push on something like this.

What would the standard look like for repo2docker? One of the choices we made is to reuse existing files (e.g. requirements.txt) instead of having our own. Is this be part of our standard then: “reuse existing files for specifying the dependencies, if you see a file called X this means you need to d…

I’d think that we could start with codifying the repo2docker specification. E.g., something like apt.txt - mypackge requirements.txt - numpy ... postBuild - blah blah We could say that this specification applies either to a text file (JSON, yaml, whatever) or to a repository, in whi…

I am not sure I understand what you mean. You want to create a new file format that has as content what you posted above? So a YAML format for a file or also files in a repository?

The specification itself wouldn’t be a file format, but the definition of a structure that comprises the “reproducible repository specification”. I just wrote it as yaml above because it’s easy to parse. E.g., here’s the specification website for a brain imaging data structure . The spec is basically…

Ok, I think we are on the same page then. A description with words (and examples) of what is/we think is currently implemented in repo2docker. I was thinking RFC style document which is why I was confused by the YAML.

Want to actually make it an rfc using the new rfc template in the jep repo?

Maybe this is out of scope or has already been discussed, but would leveraging any of the work or thinking around Cloud Native Buildpacks apply here? https://blog.heroku.com/defence-against-the-docker-arts https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/10/03/cncf-to-host-cloud-native-buildpacks-in-the-sandbox/

I knew repo2docker’s build packs were based on the build packs I know from heroku, but I hadn’t connected Heroku and CNB together. I am off to do some reading now :slight_smile: Slightly OT: maybe for future decisions in repo2docker we should look at how the CNB work and handle things. Then copy as…

Creating a specification for reproducible repositories

Binder discuss

parente April 3, 2019, 7:55pm 10

Maybe this is out of scope or has already been discussed, but would leveraging any of the work or thinking around Cloud Native Buildpacks apply here?

https://blog.heroku.com/defence-against-the-docker-arts
https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/10/03/cncf-to-host-cloud-native-buildpacks-in-the-sandbox/

Topic		Replies	Views
Repo2docker roadmap review discuss	18	1596	December 12, 2018
Repo2Docker: make it easy to start from arbitrary docker image discuss	16	3597	April 27, 2019
Generated Dockerfile v repo2docker as archival format Binder	3	810	January 9, 2019
An unfolding story of my first contribution to repo2docker Binder repo2docker , rubber-ducking	5	1898	April 23, 2019
"reproducible" binder environments with repo2docker, dockerhub and nbgitpuller discuss	10	2276	August 7, 2019

Creating a specification for reproducible repositories

Related topics