Skip to content

feat(help-check,ver-check): use package name as default binary name#337

Closed
sanghanan wants to merge 2 commits intochainguard-dev:mainfrom
sanghanan:feat/help-ver-check/set-default-bin-to-package-name
Closed

feat(help-check,ver-check): use package name as default binary name#337
sanghanan wants to merge 2 commits intochainguard-dev:mainfrom
sanghanan:feat/help-ver-check/set-default-bin-to-package-name

Conversation

@sanghanan
Copy link
Contributor

@sanghanan sanghanan commented Feb 27, 2026

If no binary is specified in the inputs to help-check and ver-check pipelines, use the package name as the binary instead. This would be just a tiny bit convenient when we're building packages with single binaries. It lets us do:

    - uses: test/tw/help-check
    - uses: test/tw/ver-check

If no binary is specified in the inputs to help-check and ver-check
pipelines, use the package name as the binary instead. This would be
convenient when we're building packages with single binaries.
@sanghanan sanghanan changed the title feat(help-check,ver-check): default bin to package name feat(help-check,ver-check): use package name as default binary name Feb 27, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@kranurag7 kranurag7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this idea. can we please consider context.name here please? ref: #240

@sanghanan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kranurag7 that would definitely be more convenient, let me make that change, thanks!

Copy link
Member

@EyeCantCU EyeCantCU left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for working on this! With the number of package variants and version streams we support though, I'd prefer we didn't merge for consistency there, as I wouldn't expect those variants and streams to also have variants and streams in the bin names

@sanghanan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@EyeCantCU, appreciate the insight! I was considering it mainly for simple packages, but I understand how keeping it explicit would be better for consistency. Will go ahead and close this, thanks!

@sanghanan sanghanan closed this Feb 27, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants