hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.10.2016, 17:01 +0200 schrieb Oliver Grawert: > 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. > > > 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 > that you can use for all three consists of: pc (gadget, pc-kernel > (obviously kernel) and core (rootfs). > > also not every cloud provider or VM user might want to use the same > basic size so they would also need their own gadgets that set the > image > size here, i think that makes it to complex, thus i would rather go > with a commandline option to the build tool. >
also: in all non cloud/VM cases not using the cmdline option is the
right way since the disk-size of your device is the base here for the
calculation during the resize process.
the cmdline option is a special case for non-hardware installs only.
making the majority of users suffer from having to declare image sizes
in self-maintained gadgets for this special case of cloud and vm users
doesn't make much sense imho.
ciao
oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Devices mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.snapcraft.io/mailman/listinfo/devices
