On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 05:49:39AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Erik Skultety wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 03:02:49AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > Do you have any high-level concerns about the ci/build approach I > > > vaguely described? The finer details are of course far from being set > > > in stone, but I think the overall idea is solid and we should aim for > > > it being implemented as we evolve our CI tooling. > > > > No, I think that was a solid proposal, I would probably think of along those > > lines as well had I ever come to that idea myself :). > > Having each repo define their own build script which can be consumed both > > during local test executions and copied to the Dockerfile for a gitlab job to > > consume makes complete sense. > > Just to make sure we're on the same page, what do you mean by "copied > to the Dockerfile"? The CI job can call the script directly from the > local clone of the repository just like a developer would on their > machine - no copying necessary. The Dockerfile describes the > environment a build will happen in, not the build steps. My brain glitched, GitLab was clearly not in the same thinking box with Dockerfile and got swayed by other related thoughts like providing the build script along with specifying a local repo to be cloned inside the container - thinking unnecessarily way too far ahead... Anyhow, I took the idea proposal the following GSoC issue: https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/issues/279 Erik
