Live data from Hacker News

GitLab Container Registry

about.gitlab.com

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#31
It seems like every time I set up some supporting infrastructure it ends up rolled into the next gitlab release a week later, not that I'm complaining (much).

If you haven't checked out gitlab in a while, you definitely should. It's been moving fast and come a long way lately.

Thank you Gitlab team for making an open source, self hosted platform and all the recent improvements you've made.

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#32
In the same idea, has someone already worked integration with a debian repository (with aptly or similar) and has some linked to share on how to do it the smartway?

We're thinking about using FPM to create the debian package Package which is the retrieve as the artifacts of the gitlab-ci build stage

And then to have a separate service that will receive a webhook at the end of the (successful) build, to retrieve the artifacts and update a repository using aptly.

Does it seems the right way or is there some much simpler solution ?

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#33
post #29

Awesome, a new place to host your unpatched, opaque disk images!

I think the patching of Docker container images is a big problem. We try to provide a completely automated flow in GitLab using CI, CD, and the container registry. I would love to have a big button that says 'update all my containers'. I've made an issue https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/592

The problem is that Docker, and more generally using stacks of binary disk images, is fundamentally flawed with respect to security and reproducibility. It's nontrivial to inspect these images for vulnerabilities because there is nothing that specifies the precise set of software that is in that image. Some stuff is compiled from source, some stuff is installed via one or more package managers, each of which may bundle additional software that one may not know about if they didn't inspect each piece of software carefully. Furthermore, one cannot even verify the image reasonably because the results are different depending on when it was built.

In short, container images as popularized by Docker are insecure by design.

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#34
post #22
post #16

This is great! But I'm curious if anyone at Gitlab can comment on what this gives over running the existing docker registry? Can we configure this to use S3 to store the resulting images? Our runner image has docker, we run our tests with docker-compose, if they pass we push them to our existing registry. In fact our .gitlab-ci.yml looks very similar to the example under "elaborate example" in the blog post. Just won…

The biggest plus of using integrated registry is that you have integrated authentication and authorization of GitLab that follow your groups and members assigned to your GitLab projects, making it really easy to have private container repositories stored on registry. Second the built-in registry is really easy to configure and maintain. You have to specify the address and provide a certificate to start using it. You…

I am super stoked to see this and will be using the crap out of it and pointing others to it (the registry is kind of a pain to get going)! It looks like this is just the v2 registry (from Distribution) integrated into Gitlab, so I'm wondering what's stopping me from backing this registry with S3? Is it just not supported by the Gitlab config yaml? I back my private registry with S3 and it's just a couple of config options to enable it. Or am I misunderstanding some fundamental concept here? Thanks for the awesome work!

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#35
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the patching of Docker container images is a big problem. We try to provide a completely automated flow in GitLab using CI, CD, and the container registry. I would love to have a big button that says 'update all my containers'. I've made an issue https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/592

The problem is that Docker, and more generally using stacks of binary disk images, is fundamentally flawed with respect to security and reproducibility. It's nontrivial to inspect these images for vulnerabilities because there is nothing that specifies the precise set of software that is in that image. Some stuff is compiled from source, some stuff is installed via one or more package managers, each of which may bund…

Don't you think that gitlab adding container registry support will encourage more people to build their own images, as opposed to trusting "black-box" images from elsewhere? Combining a base image with the deployable artifact is much more efficient than baking amis or other images. You then know exactly what your image contains and nothing more, because you built it yourself.

Of course I'm looking at this from the perspective of deploying micro-services and immutable infrastructure. Your use-case may be different.

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#36

Kind of unrelated, but I'm super happy to be working at GitLab. Nearly everything we do is out in the open, and most features are available in CE, which is fully open source ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce ). I've wanted great, open source tools that don't look like dung for a long long time, and GitLab is definitely reaching that goal. Can't help but gush about the product we're building. :D Here are some…

I'm running GitLab CE off a NAS to host my projects, and it works really well. Thank you all for making it freely available.

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#38
post #14

I'm excited for this, seems like GitLab is moving more into a all-in-one solution, compared to Github that focuses on "social coding", whatever that now means. So to try out this new feature (together with the pipelines), I tried setting up a simple project that uses a docker image to serve a simple html page. However, it seems like it's not possible to build/push from the CI system (unless you setup a self-hosted ru…

Ah, thanks to sytse, Snappy and tmaczukin for the replis. I missed that.

My configuration looks like this currently (and I'm guessing I'll hold of for a few days for the shared workers to get updated):

  image: docker:latest
  services:
  - docker:dind
  stages:
    - build
    - deploy
  build:
    stage: build
    script:
      - docker build -t registry.gitlab.com/victorbjelkholm/deploy-html-test:latest .
    only:
      - master
  deploy:
    stage: deploy
    script:
      - docker push registry.gitlab.com/victorbjelkholm/deploy-html-test:latest
    only:
      - master

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#39
post #32

In the same idea, has someone already worked integration with a debian repository (with aptly or similar) and has some linked to share on how to do it the smartway? We're thinking about using FPM to create the debian package Package which is the retrieve as the artifacts of the gitlab-ci build stage And then to have a separate service that will receive a webhook at the end of the (successful) build, to retrieve the a…

Aptly is a piece of cake compared to reprepro, because of the REST API. I just run it on a separate box, and make curl invocations from Jenkins jobs to post debs to it at the end of the build.

Depending what it is you're building, using the proper debian tooling (dpkg-buildpackage, etc) is not that much harder than FPM, and cooperating with the system gives you a lot of goodies for free (sourcedebs, cowbuilder, etc).

Re: GitLab Container Registry

#40
Up until recently I never even considered using CI in my projects because I just didn't have the time. The way GitLab are implementing all these tools makes it not only easy to use, but fun.
Post reply on HN