Hi Simon, Thanks for your thoughts.
> How do you intend the output of your python script to end up accessible > for consumption by GitLab pipelines? A simple approach is to run it > locally and commit all the generated files to git. Is that what you had > in mind? Yes, that's what I intend to do. > Another idea is to run the script during the pipeline, and (at least for > GitLab) use a sub-pipeline that takes the generated script code and runs > that as a pipelin. This avoids commiting generated files. It adds a > bit of complexity and debugging, but can work fine. Well, the problem is with debugging and transparency. When the output of a generator is being immediately used, especially in a CI situation where we can't work interactively, the turnaround cycle modify config — rerun pipeline — fetch generated log from pipeline is more tedious than modify config — run generator locally — look at generated file locally > I'm not that familiar with GitHub actions, but I assume most of the same > concepts are the same... There's no usable 'include' feature on the GitHub side, AFAIK. > Also I think you'll also quickly discover that different releases need > use different package names Yep. Package names are not the same e.g. between CentOS 7 and AlmaLinux 9. Bruno
