[surro-linux] Docker image rm on build

[Chris Punches]

Ok, I see what you're saying now.

I have no issue with this.  Pull request welcome.  You'll probably do a
better job reworking those makefiles, and in the meantime I'm working
on another variant of Foster than B, so merges will be easy at this
stage.

Just a heads up, this will all be messy until we get past the part
where the chroot is being compiled.  Once we're at that point we will
need an effort to get rid of all these superfluouos testing repos.

-C

On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 02:32 +0000, OmnidApps LLC wrote:
> Correction from this email…
> 
> all: clean <- I accidentally typed make here, I think all is what it
> actually is
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sent from ProtonMail for iOS
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2564 at 09:30, OmnidApps LLC <
> omnidapps at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > The make stage could run a clean as a dependency, that way make
> > container and make iso could be run in isolation from a clean when
> > desired.
> > 
> > Example (in target definition):
> > 
> >   make: clean <- define as a dependency in the Makefile
> > 
> > now make clean can be called either when desired, or as part of
> > calling make with no arguments :)
> > 
> > Thus, it would be user choice. Thoughts?
> > 
> > As for the idempotency concern, this wouldn’t be an issue. The base
> > image *only* has what you’ve specified in the dockerfile :) hope
> > that helps.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > 
> > Sent from ProtonMail for iOS
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2564 at 09:03, Chris Punches <
> > chris.punches at silogroup.org> wrote:
> > > I like the idea; so what would this look like?
> > > 
> > > make
> > > make container
> > > make iso
> > > make clean
> > > 
> > > ...?
> > > 
> > > One of the concerns at not having this be in the make stage is
> > > that
> > > subsequent builds would cause different results, and could
> > > compromise
> > > idempotency. If that's not accurate please let me know.
> > > 
> > > -C
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 2021-07-10 at 12:57 +0000, OmnidApps LLC wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > Instead of docker image rm inside of build, wouldn't it be
> > > better to
> > > > just make that part of the make clean stage? Reason being, the
> > > > initial build does a lot of stuff which takes a bit of time. Of
> > > > course, I could just comment the docker image rm line, but
> > > normally I
> > > > am used to these sort of artifacts sticking around unless a
> > > clean is
> > > > run.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>