Similar projects and alternatives to go-containerregistry based on common topics and language
Scout APM: A developer's best friend. Try free for 14-days. Scout APM uses tracing logic that ties bottlenecks to source code so you know the exact line of code causing performance issues and can get back to building a great product faster.
Run Linux Software Faster and Safer than Linux with Unikernels.
Reviews and mentions
Keeping Up with Docker Official Images
5 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 8 Jun 2021
 Proof of concept in the `crane` tool: https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/pull/960
Get OCI Image Config programmatically using go-containerregistry as Go module
1 project | reddit.com/r/golang | 26 Mar 2021
[go-containerregistry](https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry) is Go library and CLIs for working with container registries made by Google. By using this, we did some demo for getting OCI Image config. Here is the link for the example code:
Building Docker image from layers from registry v2 API
3 projects | reddit.com/r/docker | 12 Mar 2021
You might have an easier time interacting with the registry if you use crane.
Which tools do you actively using for inspecting layers for container images, working with container registries?
1 project | reddit.com/r/docker | 15 Feb 2021
Another tool that I found useful is crane which is developed by Google, also, recently, ahmetb published a blog post about it.
.NET container images are maintained
3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 12 Feb 2021
> Comparing image digests won’t work; they will never match.
This is a strong assertion with no further explanation. It reads like a generic truth about container images, but it's certainly possible to achieve this, as referenced later:
> Sidebar: Various folks in the container ecosystem are looking at enabling deterministic images. We welcome that. See Building deterministic Docker images with Bazel and DETERMINISTIC DOCKER IMAGES WITH GO MICROSERVICES.
I'll agree that docker makes it _really_ difficult to build and consume reproducible images (for a variety of reasons, see https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/issues/895#is... and https://twitter.com/lorenc_dan/status/1343921451792003073 for a sampling of interesting ones), but there is more to the container ecosystem than docker or Dockerfiles.
Shameless plug: I help maintain ko (https://github.com/google/ko), which can achieve reproducible builds for go projects without much fuss. It also leans heavily on go's excellent support for cross-compilation to produce multi-platform images, trivially.
> There are two cases where the container-diff tool will report that the registry and local images that you are comparing are the same (in terms of Docker history lines), but will be misleading because the images are actually different.
While container-diff is great, it can obscure what's really going on a bit. If you're interested in uncovering exactly why the digest of the image you built is different from what was published, please forgive another shameless plug for crane (https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/blob/main/cmd...), a tool I wrote to expose most of the functionality of go-containerregistry (https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry), which is the library both container-diff and ko use under the hood.
Forgive the sparse documentation, but it should be relatively straightforward for anyone familiar with the registry API and data structures, as the commands map pretty directly to registry functionality. Using crane, you can easily inspect the image in the registry directly to compare the manifests and blobs that make up an image.
For example, one reason that the digests might never match is that these images are somewhat strangely wrapped as singleton manifest lists: https://gist.github.com/jonjohnsonjr/ffba104ca504b5bb4a1f227...
It makes some sense to me that they might want to do this to prevent folks from pulling this on windows, but usually you would only encounter manifest lists for multi-platform images. Even if these builds were reproducible, you would have to compare the digest of what you built with sha256:9a210bb9cbbdba5ae2199b659551959cd01e0299419f4118d111f8443971491a -- not the sha256:fb1a43b50c7047e5f28e309268a8f5425abc9cb852124f6828dcb0e4f859a4a1 that docker outputs, as shown in the article.
The tag used for this example (mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:5.0-alpine) has since been updated. Comparing this with the original using container-diff just tells us that the size changed: https://gist.github.com/jonjohnsonjr/90c2def551833c8cacf3264...
But looking at the actual manifests, config blobs, and layers using crane is often faster and more interesting: https://gist.github.com/jonjohnsonjr/283eab27d996b2f4cc04553...
My intention with crane is to be easily composable so that you can use familiar tools like tar, sort, diff, jq, etc.
(To be fair to container-diff, you can use the -t flag to show similar things.)
I realize this is not really the point of the article, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine that everyone has just given up on understanding what's going on with their images because the tooling UX makes everything so opaque. If the digest of something doesn't match, you should know why! It's as if `git push --force` was on by default and everyone has just accepted that reality.
Now to read the rest of the article :)
google/go-containerregistry is an open source project licensed under Apache License 2.0 which is an OSI approved license.