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

Make provisioning directory configurable #24

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

Conversation

whwright
Copy link

No description provided.

@whwright
Copy link
Author

I can bump all the version numbers as well, or leave it to you if you would prefer. I was thinking 0.7.1. Let me know what you think!

@whwright
Copy link
Author

Hey Ray! Are you interested in this change? It there anything I could do to help you get it release ready?

@rholder
Copy link
Owner

rholder commented Jun 22, 2019

I just got around to staring at this a bit. In its current form, this PR will allow for overriding the usages of $PROVISIONING everywhere. That directory unfortunately, in the debinate package call for the Python-style flow, serves 2 purposes:

  • It provides the location for the root directory, after_install.sh, control file, etc.
  • It also provides the location for creating temporary build artifacts in build, cache, and target

I think we might want to make this into 2 separate variables to better isolate the code paths: the one you've added that can be overridden via $DEBINATE_PROVISIONING to hold the location for the non-temporary build artifacts associated with a project and another one to hold the build, cache, and target ephemeral files (exposed as something like $DEBINATE_OUTPUT).

I can merge this in as-is and then get another PR up that does what is described here for further review. Does that sound reasonable and in line with what your original intent was?

@whwright
Copy link
Author

Thanks for getting back to me. The original intent is to have control over where root, control, etc are stored on the filesystem. IMO splitting $PROVISIONING in 2 distinct locations is a separate issue, however I agree it is a good idea and am willing to help make the change. As such, I would prefer to get this PR in as-is and follow up with a separate PR.

Let me know what you think!

@whwright
Copy link
Author

I'm just going to maintain my own fork then

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