-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 172
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
ros:noetic
is 3 years old?
#767
Comments
The last published noetic tag is from "a month ago" https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/ros/noetic/images/sha256-c7631b6323509f943142bd494abf268127a6807d81bd75e5f1fec2e0cd2caf7f?context=explore And if I pull it shows I'm up to date with the long hash version.
That's really odd behavior. |
After some more creative searching (ie: different keywords), this might be due to a change in the way the official images are built. I haven't yet found out if something changed there, but according to moby/buildkit/docs/build-repro.md: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, it's possible to specify a value which in the end sets the According to this in And it turns out df19ab7 was committed on Which is exactly what is stored in the Apparently the official images now have their created date set to the date of the last commit that 'touched' their I guess for images which don't have the problems with updating (as discussed in #112, #671 and #723) this can work/makes sense. For images like |
@ruffsl @mikaelarguedas would you know of any changes to how the images are built upstream? Or has this always been how things worked and have I just not been paying attention? |
Hey @gavanderhoorn , thanks for sleuthing! I'll admit I simallary find it a peculiar choice to set That said, instead of relying on this "
docker buildx imagetools inspect ros:noetic
docker image inspect ros:noetic
I briefly went down this rabbit hole back when support for mult arch manifest lists was new, and more recently while trying to fetch layer shas from the registry without pulling the image (but was only able to query the compressed shas). |
@gavanderhoorn , did my post above answer get to the root of your question? |
I apologise in advance for opening this issue -- as I believe it's a topic well-discussed, such as in #671, #112 and #723 -- but after searching old(er) ones I couldn't find something that explained what
docker images
is telling me.On my system (and some other systems), I'm getting the following output:
And indeed:
$ docker inspect -f '{{ .Created }}' ros:noetic 2020-11-17T19:36:01Z
apt update && apt list --upgradable
does not mention any Noetic packages as having any updates available though, which I would expect if the image was really three years old.The same "3 years ago" is shown for images like
ros:noetic-ros-base
andros:noetic-robot
.The last one actually aged "visibly" for me, as before I
docker pull
ed it, it was 11 months old (on this particular machine, ID:d63508127062
), while afterpull
ing it, it was suddenly 3 years old (ID:120ea3b74897
).Have I forgotten how to interpret the output of
docker images
, or is something not as it should be?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: