On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 12:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:52:06PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > # libvirt-python+dist.yml > > --- > > packages: > > - libvirt > > - python-3 > > ... > > > > which is used like > > > > $ lcitool dockerfile $OS libvirt-python+dist > > > > This would achieve the same result with less typing and without > > subverting the existing semantics. > > This results in defining the combinatorial expansion of project sets > which just looks like unecessary duplication & work to me. It also > gives different syntax for configuring a container to build from git > vs dist. > > There is only ever one project here "libvirt-project" and nothing > about it is is changing, except for which "libvirt" it is being > built against. It supports any libvirt, whether a full git build > or a minimal git build, or a distro build or some other build: > > $ lcitool dockerfile $OS libvirt,libvirt-python > $ lcitool dockerfile $OS libvirt-dist,libvirt-python > $ lcitool dockerfile $OS libvirt-minimal,libvirt-python Okay, this is a pretty solid argument. It also opens up the possibility of some external project, that uses libvirt but is not known to lcitool, using $ lcitool dockerfile $OS libvirt+dist to generate a base container for their CI use, which coud be useful. The semantics of $project and $project+dist are still different enough that we should document them properly in lcitool's README. > We could call it "libvirt+dist" instead "libvirt-dist" if we want Yes please. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
