On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 06:35:52PM +1000, Chris Fordham wrote:
> It does not however need to be based on a tar if that is what is being
> debated (or the master is a tar). Its a completely normal practice to build
> an image in mounted loopback with a .img (raw) and then convert that to
> desired formats, packages and the root fs into a flat file tar.
I see no reason to have two code-paths doing the same thing. So using
the tar as input always reduces the overall complexity of the software.
> For 'transformations' where you modify files or run commands in chroot of
> the filesystem that is within the artifact, its actually more dancing to
> extract a tarball than it is to simply mount an image in loopback.
The is a lot more than "simply mount an image", as this image contains
partitions, not neccesarily at the same location. So no, this is not
I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth.
-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9