Or, just a wild idea: maybe make xspecirl" manifest entries that would modify Docker image?
This actually would resemble the Dockerfile: name, entrypoint, package installs and custom script execution is done in one fine, streamlined. It seems a bit strange for me, for example, to specify things like entrypoint on the guix pack command line. Best, Przemek Sent from Proton Mail mobile \-------- Original Message -------- On Jan 20, 2023, 16:07, Greg Hogan < c...@greghogan.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:18 AM Simon Tournier wrote: > > > Maybe then add > an option to guix pack to accept optional name? And if not > > provided, fall > back to manifest->friendly-name. > > …yes, I agree. It could be nice to be > able to directly name the image. > However, this would mean that the produced > Docker pack would not be > bit-to-bit reproducible considering the same > manifest. Other said, the > bit-to-bit reproducibility would require three > inputs: the channels.scm > file describing the revision of Guix (and > potentially other channels), > the manifest.scm file describing the packages > and also the name provided > at Docker pack build-time. > > Cheers, > simon > The image hash already depends on \`guix pack\` command-line options > --entry-point, --save-provenance, and --symlink as well as package > transformations, --no-grafts, and --system. Since building a bit-to-bit > reproducible docker image already requires replaying the command-line > options, adding an optional name would not reduce reproducibility. Greg
publickey - EmailAddress(s=cgenie@pm.me) - 0x9CC42B0A.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
