-
|
This repo produces two container images. It would be preferable if it would produce only one container image while the second one is tracked in its own repo. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 6 replies
-
|
A lot hinges on the definition of "split". If it's literally a fork, that will impose a cost. Let's be realistic, right now this repository is just a list of packages, but still, there's already too many of these repositories floating around (atomic desktops, edge, coreos etc. and a big goal of this project is to deduplicate). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ultimately again we clearly want to move the Fedora one in some place "upstream". And longer term, the build process for it too (which is kind of happening in https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/1699 ). I am just questioning whether at this very moment it's really necessary to split the git repositories here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It is not really necessary. It is just a matter of saving some cycles in the near future. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK then I think it'd be best to try to defer any more "internal" restructuring in favor of having things in a more final location. If it helps I guess for now, the focus of this repository should probably move to stream9, but we should at least try to keep building eln. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Got it. Please ignore the fedora-bootc repo for now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Got it. Please ignore the fedora-bootc repo for now.