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

[RFC] gen-manifests: add excluded packages via exclude: prefix in mock #938

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mvo5
Copy link
Contributor

@mvo5 mvo5 commented Sep 18, 2024

This commit adds excluded packages to the generated manifest when the gen-manifests command is run in the mockDepsolve() mode.

This allows us to compare the generated otk and images manifests with more confidence.

This commit adds excluded packages to the generated manifest when
the `gen-manifests` command is run in the `mockDepsolve()` mode.

This allows us to compare the generated otk and images manifests
with more confidence.
@mvo5 mvo5 force-pushed the gen-manifests-mock-excludes branch from 234ad9e to fbde851 Compare September 18, 2024 09:45
@mvo5 mvo5 changed the title [RFC] gen-manifests: add excluded packages via exclude- prefix in mock [RFC] gen-manifests: add excluded packages via exclude: prefix in mock Sep 18, 2024
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/osbuild-otk that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
This commit regenerates the reference images with the new `exclude:`
prefix as outlined in osbuild/images#938
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/osbuild-otk that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
This commit follows osbuild/images#938
and adjust the way excludes are represented.
Copy link
Member

@supakeen supakeen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it make sense to return these in the list of package specs? We wouldn't normally get that information from the depsolver as the packages are excluded so I feel like a list of package names is enough here?

@mvo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

mvo5 commented Sep 18, 2024

Does it make sense to return these in the list of package specs? We wouldn't normally get that information from the depsolver as the packages are excluded so I feel like a list of package names is enough here?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but if we just add the excluded package names as "normal" packages to the resolver we would not catch differences like "images" includes "pkg1" but "otk" excludes "pkg1". In both cases it would appear in the package list so I think we need some prefix/marker/thing that ensures they are different. Plus this is very explicit. But open for ideas of course.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants