Remove hardcoded refs from ociartifact code

[inknos]

Fixes: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RUN-3578
Depends on: containers/container-libs#411

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

[inknos]

@baude @Luap99 I am confused on how to write tests for this PR and how to build in this PR when code from container-libs/common is needed

[packit-as-a-service]

[NON-BLOCKING] Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check. Everyone else, feel free to ignore.

[packit-as-a-service]

[NON-BLOCKING] Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check. Everyone else, feel free to ignore.

[Luap99]

you need a go mod replace to build and test temporarily here in podman

https://github.com/containers/container-libs/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GO.md#testing-changes-in-a-dependent-repository

I am not sure we need to add a test

[baude]

im ok with no new tests for now.

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

Changes LGTM with a quick breeze

[inknos]

@Luap99 tbh I got lost a little bit thinking how we could append the podman version as a tag. Ideally, that is only when endpoint is the same as config.Machine.Image. I think my implementation is far from being nice, but I am getting closer to the solution.

[Luap99]

Ideally, that is only when endpoint is the same as config.Machine.Image

I don't think is is important and likely not what we want in case RHEL overrides that with a custom image. I think the logic could be quite simple, if it doesn't specify a tag/digest then append the current version. That seems the most logical and consitent behavior for users and documentation purposes because the cli and config values still behave the same then.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: inknos
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign l0rd for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[Luap99]

Without the corresponding common update this will beak podman machine init.

Since the common PR is merged to update then vendor during dev cycles please run

go get go.podman.io/storage@main && go get go.podman.io/image/v5@main &&  go get go.podman.io/common@main && make vendor

then commit this. (Note vendor will fail currently due the cgroupv2 removal, @lsm5 will revert it in common then it should work afterwards)

Also machine test are failing as they don't hard code the image so they have none, the test should not parse the config file so just hard code the location in pkg/machine/e2e/machine_pull_test.go

[inknos]

@Luap99 I addressed the comments. should I squash the commits with the vendor?

also, I am hitting
libpod/oci_conmon_linux.go:378:21: cannot use resource.Pids.Limit (variable of type int64) as *int64 value in assignment on make podman. is it caused by vendoring?

[Luap99]

@Luap99 I addressed the comments. should I squash the commits with the vendor?

No, extra commits for vendor is what I usually prefer unless it breaks the build then we need the fix in the same commit as we require all commits to compile.

also, I am hitting libpod/oci_conmon_linux.go:378:21: cannot use resource.Pids.Limit (variable of type int64) as *int64 value in assignment on make podman. is it caused by vendoring?

Yeah, that is caused due the cgroups dependency update that got dragged in via common containers/container-libs#428, we need to update that in podman first. I try to take care of that now.

Also opencontainers/cgroups#48, looks like there are more changes around that need also for #27440 but that should not affect you here to much for now I think.

[Luap99]

Ah, one other things please don't just name the commit Vendor, we vendor a lot of things so a bit more info would be nice, like: vendor: update common, image, storage

[inknos]

Let me squash the commits then

[Luap99]

it should work once #27454 merged and you rebase

[inknos]

awesome, thanks a lot

[Luap99]

Did you run git add . before commiting? Looks like you did not commit all vendor files.

[inknos]

Idk how I excluded them, now all should be up to date