On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 06:35:52PM +1000, Chris Fordham wrote: > > It does not however need to be based on a tar if that is what is being > > debated (or the master is a tar). Its a completely normal practice to > build > > an image in mounted loopback with a .img (raw) and then convert that to > > desired formats, packages and the root fs into a flat file tar. > > I see no reason to have two code-paths doing the same thing. So using > the tar as input always reduces the overall complexity of the software. > > > For 'transformations' where you modify files or run commands in chroot of > > the filesystem that is within the artifact, its actually more dancing to > > extract a tarball than it is to simply mount an image in loopback. > > The is a lot more than "simply mount an image", as this image contains > partitions, not neccesarily at the same location. So no, this is not > easy. > I'll be honest, I don't believe that either are hard also. > > Bastian > > -- > I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth. > -- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9 > >
