App filename defaults to major version (e.g., v5) for binaries in modules root

[spencerschrock]

For modules that are v2 or above, and binaries which live in the module root, the import path ends with the major version (e.g., github.com/ossf/scorecard/v5). This results in the binary being named v5 inside the container instead of scorecard.

Are you open to me sending a patch for this edge case?

[imjasonh]

I'm not totally opposed, but there is #1403 to let you rename the executable path which might solve your problem.

If that's the case we can push on that to kill two birds.

[spencerschrock]

My understanding is #1403 (as written) is just to configure the directory, and that the binary name would stay the same. If the implementation changes to customize the binary name too, I'd be happy to close this issue out.

[imjasonh]

You're correct, my mistake. There have been a few different versions of proposals like #1403 over the years, some that have included the binary name.

Both of these problems have the same shape though: whereas ko was originally designed to abstract away the binary name and location completely, some use cases seem to care about them, and ko should let you specify those.

I have to ask, because I always do: why does the name of the executable matter in your use case? Is it visible to whatever's calling the ko-built image (i.e., has the abstraction broken) or is the problem purely about the aethetics of knowing something is calling v5 instead of something better like scorecard? I'm obviously biased since I helped make the decision forever ago, but I've been happy over the years with the abstraction of not knowing/caring what the binary is called, and I haven't found (m)any situations where it's become relevant (i.e., the abstraction has mostly held for me)

Obviously the fact that #1403 is open and being discussed is counter-evidence, and folks seemingly do know and care about the location, I'm just always looking for more signal about what cases this matters.

In any case, I'd love to include specifying the binary name into #1403 (or something like it) so that we don't have two solutions for these very similar problems.

[spencerschrock]

I have to ask, because I always do: why does the name of the executable matter in your use case? Is it visible to whatever's calling the ko-built image (i.e., has the abstraction broken)

As far as I'm concerned it's cosmetic, but some of our users build on top of our published images.
ossf/scorecard#4951 (comment)

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Keep fresh with the 'lifecycle/frozen' label.