RFC Flatten builders

text/0000-flatten-feature.md

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+# Meta
+[meta]: #meta
+- Name: Flatten builders and buildpacks
+- Start Date: 2023-07-13
+- Author(s): @jjbustamante, @dlion
+- Status: Draft <!-- Acceptable values: Draft, Approved, On Hold, Superseded -->
+- RFC Pull Request: (leave blank)
+- CNB Pull Request: (leave blank)
+- CNB Issue: (leave blank)
+- Supersedes: (put "N/A" unless this replaces an existing RFC, then link to that RFC)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+We propose to add new capabilities to the Pack tool that allow end users to reduce the number of Buildpack's layers in an OCI image by flattening according to their requirements.
+
+# Definitions
+[definitions]: #definitions
+
+- Buildpack: A buildpack is a set of executables that inspects your app source code and creates a plan to build and run your application.
+- Builder: A builder is an image that contains all the components necessary to execute a build. A builder image is created by taking a build image and adding a lifecycle, buildpacks, and files that configure aspects of the build including the buildpack detection order and the location(s) of the run image
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+- Why should we do this?
+
+There is a limit in the number of layer an image can have, at least on Docker, which is *127*, this feature has being request by the community, issue [#1595](https://github.com/buildpacks/pack/issues/1595), as a workaround to solve error thrown by docker when the limit is reached
+
+- What use cases does it support?
+
+Buildpacks provider like Paketo have composite buildpacks with several layers, when they pull many of those together into a builder, hitting the layer limit for a container image happens very often. A feature for the Buildpack author to group the buildpacks by any attribute will allow them to squash those groups into one layer and reduce their total number of layers, avoiding the layer limit.
+
+- What is the expected outcome?
+
+When Buildpacks Authors execute commands like:
+
+`pack builder create ... <flatten options>` or
+`pack buildpack package ... <flatten options>`
+
+The final OCI image artifact (A) SHOULD contain layers blobs with more than *one* buildpack according to the configuration provided by the user. If we compare an artifact (B) created *without* `<flatten options>` then:
+
+$numberOfBuildpackLayers(A) \leq numberOfBuildpackLayers(B)$
+
+A and B MUST be otherwise interchangeable, only differing by their number of layers.
+
+
+# What it is
+[what-it-is]: #what-it-is
+
+The proposal is to include new experimental flags to the following commands on pack:
+
+- `pack builder create`
+- `pack buildpack package`
+
+The new flags will move from experimental status to supported status when maintainers deem it appropriate.
+
+The new flags to be included are:
+
+- `--flatten=<buildpacks>` will flatten the Buildpacks specified after the `flatten` flag into a single layer. Can be used more than once, with each use resulting in a single layer.
+
+We also need to define how a platform implementor needs to consume a flatten buildpackpage or builder.
+
+- When a platform consumes an OCI image artifact, they will need to inspect each buildpack layer blob and determine if the blob contains more than one buildpack, in such as case, they will need to process those buildpacks correctly.
+
+
+# How it Works
+[how-it-works]: #how-it-works
+
+Let's say we have a composite buildpack (CB1) with the following dependency tree:
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    A[CB1]
+    A --> B[G1]
+    A --> C[G2]
+    B --> BPA[BP1]
+    B --> BPFOO[BP2]
+    B --> BPC[BP4]
+    C --> BPD[BP1]
+    C --> BPBAR[BP3]
+    C --> BPE[BP4]
+```
+
+Until now, when a buildpack like this is being shipped  into an OCI image every individual buildpack is being saved in one layer, as a result we will have:
+
+$$
+layer_1 = [CB_1] \\
+layer_2 = [G_1] \\
+layer_3 = [BP_1] \\
+layer_4 = [BP_2] \\
+layer_5 = [BP_4] \\
+layer_6 = [G_2] \\
+layer_7 = [BP_3] \\
+total = \text{7 layers}
+$$
+
+Noticed that duplicated buildpacks are cleaned up.
+
+We can use the new `flatten` flag to reduce the number of OCI image layers used by the buildpacks in different ways.
+
+* `--flatten=<buildpacks>` i.e. `--flatten=<BP1,BP2> --flatten=<BP3,BP4>`:
+  Will group the given buildpacks into one layer and keep the other ones as single layers buildpacks, the result will be:
+
+```mermaid
+classDiagram
+    class Layer1 {
+      CB1
+    }
+    class Layer2 {
+      G1 
+    }
+    class Layer3 {
+      BP1
+      BP2
+    }
+    class Layer4 {
+      G2
+    }
+    class Layer5 {
+      BP3
+      BP4
+    }
+```
+
+
+$$
+total = \text{5 layers}
+$$
+
+---
+
+
+# Migration
+[migration]: #migration
+
+The current [distribution spec](https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/blob/main/distribution.md#buildpackage) defines:
+
+```
+Each buildpack layer blob MUST contain a single buildpack at the following file path:
+
+/cnb/buildpacks/<buildpack ID>/<buildpack version>/
+```
+
+A Buildpackage flattened with this new feature would not be consumable by older platform implementations because they are not expecting to find more than one buildpack on a blob layer.
+
+
+<!--
+This section should document breaks to public API and breaks in compatibility due to this RFC's proposed changes. In addition, it should document the proposed steps that one would need to take to work through these changes. Care should be give to include all applicable personas, such as platform developers, buildpack developers, buildpack users and consumers of buildpack images.
+-->
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this?
+
+Distributing a buildpackage with more than one buildpack in a layer blob adds complexity to platform implementors because they will need to do the opposite process when consuming the OCI images.
+
+It will add complexity to Buildpack Authors processes because they will need to think how to group their buildpacks together in a layer blob in an efficient way avoiding for example network issues when pulling new blobs from a registry. Size, frequency of change and other variables must be taken into consideration when buildpacks are flatten.
+
+It will create artifacts that are not consumable by older platforms.
+
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+- What other designs have been considered?
+
+Some other alternatives mentioned are: squashing by the buildpack size or squashing a CNB Builder when the number of layers is reaching the limit, but those ideas, do not deal with the main problems of distributing more than one buildpack in a layer blob.
+
+
+- Why is this proposal the best?
+
+Not sure if it is the best, but way to solve the `layer limit error` is to optimize the uses of the layer in a OCI image.
+
+- What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+Buildpack Authors and Platform Operators will keep seeing the layer limit error.
+
+# Prior Art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+Discuss prior art, both the good and bad.
+
+---
+
+<!-- 
+- What parts of the design do you expect to be resolved through implementation of the feature?
+- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?
+
+-->
+
+# Spec. Changes (OPTIONAL)
+[spec-changes]: #spec-changes
+
+Maybe, but it's not clear about this.
+
+<!--
+Does this RFC entail any proposed changes to the core specifications or extensions? If so, please document changes here.
+Examples of a spec. change might be new lifecycle flags, new `buildpack.toml` fields, new fields in the buildpackage label, etc.
+This section is not intended to be binding, but as discussion of an RFC unfolds, if spec changes are necessary, they should be documented here.
+
+-->
+
+# History
+[history]: #history
+
+<!--
+## Amended
+### Meta
+[meta-1]: #meta-1
+- Name: (fill in the amendment name: Variable Rename)
+- Start Date: (fill in today's date: YYYY-MM-DD)
+- Author(s): (Github usernames)
+- Amendment Pull Request: (leave blank)
+
+### Summary
+
+A brief description of the changes.
+
+### Motivation
+
+Why was this amendment necessary?
+--->%