On 2023-05-31 18:47:03 +0100, Graham Addis wrote: > Hi Wolf, > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 07:52, Graham Addis <grahamjamesad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ENTRYPOINT ["executable", "param1", "param2"] # The exec form, which > > is the preferred form: > > I realised that pack takes multiple symlink(s) using > > --symlink /bin=bin --symlink /opt=opt > > I could use the equivalent format for --entry-point > > --entry-point executable --entry-point param1 --entry-point param2 > > This seems the most consistent approach with the current implementation so > far. > > Thoughts? >
I think that is a reasonable idea. Only downside is that it would not be backwards compatible (since currently last --entry-point wins), however I am not sure if someone actually relies on that behavior. Backwards compatible way would be keeping --entry-point as it is and introducing new argument (--entry-point-arg) that could be used to build the argument list, but I might be overthinking it :). W. -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature