Harbor VS gitlab

cat << EOF wget \ https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/download/v2.9.4/\ harbor-offline-installer-v2.9.4.tgz EOF

Now that you know a little more about Cosign, Notary, and DCT, we will take it one step further by using one of these tools: Cosign. For this example, we will use the simple Docker registry:2 reference image to run a simple registry. In a real-world scenario, a managed registry such as Harbor, Amazon ECR, Docker Hub, etc.

Have a look at harbor, you can also use it to follow the same methods for helm charts etc.

Or for something more advanced https://goharbor.io/

Look at https://goharbor.io/

You can host your own image repo if your feeling feisty. Harbor is a graduated project from the CNCF and they are also working on a new implementation called Dragonfly. https://goharbor.io/

Does anybody know whether there could be something like an open/libre container registry?

Maybe the cloud native foundation or the linux foundation could provide something like this to prevent vendor lock-ins?

I was coincidentially trying out harbor again over the last days, and it seems nice as a managed or self-hosted alternative. [1] after some discussions we probably gonna go with that, because we want to prevent another potential lock-in with sonarpoint's nexus.

Does anybody have similar migration plans?

[1] https://goharbor.io

2) Harbor instance registry

Since the relevant code appears to be in the "ee" directory <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v16.11.0-ee/ee/l...> and is not present in the foss repo, I'm guessing the answer is no, at least for now. They do have a history of "releasing" features from EE back to CE but my suspicion is not for LLM stuff

(Side note: Issues are usually hash-prefixed like #1234 both on GitLab and GitHub. However, commit messages must not begin with a hash, they would be considered a comment and ignored. Therefore, GitHub has introduced the alternative prefix GH- and I've contributed a similar prefix GL- to GitLab a while ago.)

and its "oh, you want multi-arch, do you?" friend. While prosecuting this <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/339567> I learned that https://hub.docker.com/layers/multiarch/qemu-user-static/7.2... actually mutates the binfmt_misc in buildx's context in order to exec the static copy of qemu in it https://github.com/multiarch/qemu-user-static/blob/v7.2.0-1/...

and, that the buildx plugin itself has some qemu magick in it, which got addressed in a minor version bump but I couldn't track down the relevant GitHub issue this second (I've flushed it from my mind, only recalling that there were a lot of actors in that tire fire)

This is actually a follow-up refactor, the fix is here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commit/abe79e4ec43798...