Re: Request for Multibuildpack Use Cases

Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>

Ah, I think that helps a lot. So to restate this would be a feature of the
buildpacks themselves and the current buildpack contract (perhaps
triggering off of detect or something) not a generic feature of the cloud
controller feature would allows you to apply and order multiple buildpacks
against a single app, correct?


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Danny Rosen <danny.rosen(a)> wrote:

The Cloud Foundry Buildpacks project does not contain an "oracle-library"

For as list of Cloud Foundry buildpacks please see the "System Buildpacks"
section of the official Cloud Foundry documentation [1].

If your use case includes multiple buildpacks from this list, we would be
interested in hearing about it as we recognize that this type of
functionality may be useful to those in the community.

I apologize if that was not clear in my original post.

[1] -
On Apr 11, 2016 6:57 PM, "Mike Youngstrom" <youngm(a)> wrote:

Although, correct me if I'm wrong, this feature could be used as a
solution for some of those cases. For example, if my application depends
upon an oracle-service my node application will require the oracle binary
libraries to be configured in my environment before the nodejs buildpack
runs. If I create an "oracle-library" buildpack that installs the oracle
libraries in my staging container before npm install then this is
potentially another way to cover some of the use cases of the other
extension points right?


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:38 PM, JT Archie <jarchie(a)> wrote:

Mike, this is so buildpacks can be composed together.

For example, if a user want to use NodeJS to compile Javascript assets
for a Java app (yes, there always Maven support, but some have different
work flows).

Multi-buildpack doesn't alleviate forking of buildpacks. In my opinion,
the above proposals for extensions to the buildpack app life cycle
are orthogonal.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)>

This seems to be yet another way to extend buildpacks with out forking
to go along with [0] and [1]. My only hope is that all these newly
proposed extension mechanisms come together in a simple, coherent, and
extensible way.



On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Danny Rosen <drosen(a)> wrote:

Hi there,

The CF Buildpacks team is considering taking on a line of work to
provide more formal support for multibuildpacks. Before we start, we would
be interested in learning if any community users have compelling use cases
they could share with us.

For more information on multibuildpacks, see Heroku's documentation [1]

[1] -

Join to automatically receive all group messages.