On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Oliver Grawert <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi, > On Di, 2016-10-11 at 10:53 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > Let me ask this: would you prefer a cli option/envar over declaring > > it in the > > gadget.yaml, and if so, why? My problem with the cli/envar is that > > it hides > > the configuration in your shell history, instead of declaring it up > > front in > > the yaml file. The latter allows you to point to an image and say, > > "this was > > created with that gadget.yaml" and be done with it, without also > > having to > > specify the particular magic you used to run the tool. > +1 defining it in the gadget would be rather awful since that means if we > use an identical image for cloud, VM and "normal PC install" we would > need a gadget per image just for that one difference ... (the pc image > We need a different gadget for those cases anyway, right? We don't want cloud-init probing arbitrary addresses on someone's data center. I agree with Barry here. I'd prefer to encourage people to make gadget.yaml be reproducible. Also, it seems nicer to encode sizes precisely than to have a "factor" which pads the image based on external factors, for the same reason. gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-- Devices mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.snapcraft.io/mailman/listinfo/devices
