Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

02-external: move common text under depsolve-dnf{4,5} #56

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

02-external: move common text under depsolve-dnf{4,5} #56

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 2 additions & 6 deletions doc/03-omnifest/02-external.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,20 +4,16 @@

These directives are only allowed within a [`otk.target.osbuild.<name>`](./01-directive.md#otktargetconsumername).
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the directives are only allowed under a specific target, we could allow users to write this shother: otk.external.osbuild.file-from-text`` -> otk.external.file-from-text`` as we know that the context is osbuild from the target. This would also ensure that users cannot use external commands that are not matching their target

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could though I like the explicitness; I guess I'm about even on this so let's see what others feel like.

It'd feel weird to me if we had otk.external.file-from-text that does different things under different targets.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no super strong opinion here but we should make sure that we do not allow using tools for targets that do not match the target target.

I am not sure if e.g. different otk.external.user implementations depending on the target would be bad, I mean, they are clearly scoped under a

otk.target.osbuild:
 stages:
   - otk.external.users:

and in kiwi the same. But I don't really mind much, it just seems a bit redundant (both in terms of extra checks needed to avoid mixing targets and in extra typing for the users).


### `otk.external.osbuild.depsolve-dnf4`
### `otk.external.osbuild.depsolve-dnf{4,5}`

Solves a list of package specifications to RPMs and specifies them in the
osbuild manifest as sources.

### `otk.external.osbuild.depsolve-dnf5`

Expects a `map` as its value.
### `otk.external.osbuild.file-from-text`
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(nitpick) neither this nor the one below are actually used yet, I think would be ideal if all our directives have a use-case

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right; but removing them today only to re-add them next week when the usecase arises (for these directives: it will, they're necessary for the file customization(s) and a few image types) also seems a bit weird.


`osbuild` directives to write files. **If a stage exists for the type of file
you want to write: use it.** See the [best practices](../04-best-practices.md).

### `otk.external.osbuild.file-from-text`

Write inline text to a file. Creates a source in the manifest and copies that
source to the destination in the tree.

Expand Down