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.

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

Match output directory names with input types #793

Open
p5 opened this issue Jan 12, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Match output directory names with input types #793

p5 opened this issue Jan 12, 2025 · 1 comment

Comments

@p5
Copy link

p5 commented Jan 12, 2025

It would be helpful for automation if the artifact output directories matches the inputs provided to BIB.

Current:

./output/**qcow2**/disk.qcow2 		// --type **qcow2**
./output/**image**/disk.raw 		// --type **raw**
./output/**bootiso**/install.iso 	// --type **iso**
./output/**bootiso**/install.iso 	// --type **anaconda-iso**

Proposed:

./output/**qcow2**/disk.qcow2 			// --type **qcow2**
./output/**raw**/disk.raw 				// --type **raw**
./output/**iso**/install.iso 			// --type **iso**
./output/**anaconda-iso**/install.iso 	// --type **anaconda-iso**

When building for multiple types, it's difficult to know which artifact matches to which type. I started baking in maps from the types to output directories, but things got a lot more confusing when I found out iso and anaconda-iso used the same output locations.

My aim here is to have a script which runs BIB with multiple types, then outputs information about each artifact. "You have requested a qcow2 and raw image. The qcow2 image can be found here, and the raw image can be found here".

This isn't something that can't be worked around, but it would be a nice UX improvement.

There's probably some reasons why these are structured this way that I am unaware of, so I'm happy for this to be closed as "Won't fix" if this is the case.

@mvo5
Copy link
Collaborator

mvo5 commented Jan 13, 2025

Thanks! Yeah, we would like to have a more predictable pattern here and also to provide the user with more control over the output names/directories. Part of the prerequisite work is happening in osbuild/images#1039 (not strictly needed for your proposal though), parts need to happen in osbuild but it is on our radar :)

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants