I don't think that is the actual intent; I was just trying to express how incredibly bad it looks fr
I don't think that is the actual intent; I was just trying to express how incredibly bad it looks from a technical perspective
XIt is technically the same as ublue-os/base.
CWhich was specifically deprecated in favor of main and its better structure
XWell obviously. So not trying to have them as part of it is not splintering.
XMain is based on Base, the deprecation was done because it's role and name changed. Main is the upstream image, which other uBlue images are based on. Base was both an image with some goodies and a template for people to use. Main is intended to be those goodies, and startingpoint is intended to be the template.
XIt's true that it was my plan, and I executed it because I saw it fit. If yall don't want it then alright I'll just remove the repo or something and redo all the documenting on main.
XMy point is; Why have a repository that serves two purposes, and inherits itself? Why not have a clear structure of inheritance, where the inheritee is another image that serves another purpose?
CI've been following discussions in this channel fairly consistently and I'm confused by "starting point" because everyone else was ironing out how to structure the project such that Main functions as a unified template for all of the official AND unofficial images, and the diagram they used, which you created, supported that.
I do think that documentation was/is/should be a priority on the to-do list for Main, but I don't see what would be different from Main in "starting point"
I do think that documentation was/is/should be a priority on the to-do list for Main, but I don't see what would be different from Main in "starting point"
COf course, anything I say can be overridden by the people I'm trying to indirectly relay information from, if I misunderstood something
XThe graph I created specifically included a starting point, and as far as I know nobody was complaining then. As far as I knew, Main was supposed to be just an upstream image, but apparently it actually was not and was intended to be multipurpose.
CMaybe I misremembered the diagram or it was maybe interpreted multiple ways, I'm looking for a copy to refresh my memory
MI think overall a lot of this can be avoided if we do more consensus seeking and PRs for reviews
XChanged it! See above link
Coh
I think I see what went weird
I think I see what went weird
MI’m going to fill in branch protections everywhere but even Jorge does everything via PRs for reviews and it’s a standard we should embrace
XWell, yeah. The bane of an open source multi-person project. Heh.
XStartingpoint was a new repo though, so nothing to PR to.
XYall should probably remove my write access to the website though.
MBut checking in this discord first could solve a lot of headache
MOr a discussion to outline the goal and purpose
MIn GitHub
XI just happen to be active at times many other people are not. Except for the people seeking help with their custom images of course, who get many conflicting sources of info.
MThat’s why we have GitHub discussions! 
CI interpreted the "starting point" box as a categorical representation that any of the above could be forked as the basis of a custom image, rather than one concrete "starting point" repo.
I think the former makes more sense because it allows people to fork custom images from any point in the modular inheritance they want to, including the bare-bones upstream main, rather than all starting from one bare-bones template identical to the upstream main
Either way, I'm glad that the communication snag maybe got found so it can be addressed
I think the former makes more sense because it allows people to fork custom images from any point in the modular inheritance they want to, including the bare-bones upstream main, rather than all starting from one bare-bones template identical to the upstream main
Either way, I'm glad that the communication snag maybe got found so it can be addressed
Xbut then I would've had to ask yesterday for what I did today, and I didn't have time for that, so I couldn't have done it today, so I wouldn't have done it this week,...
in the end, it's a new repo, I didn't do anything that breaks things. I went with the lazy concensus https://ublue.it/CONTRIBUTING/#i-want-to-contribute
in the end, it's a new repo, I didn't do anything that breaks things. I went with the lazy concensus https://ublue.it/CONTRIBUTING/#i-want-to-contribute
XThe concept of “lazy consensus” is very important in your project. Lazy consensus means that when you are convinced that you know what the community would like to see happen, you can assume that you have consensus in favor of the proposed work and can get on with it. You don’t have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, and you certainly don’t need to call a vote to get approval. You just assume you have the community’s support unless someone says otherwise.
XI view the approach of somebody being encouraged to fork any other uBlue image as a base for their own custom container image for just doing a couple of tweaks way more confusing, than having a clearly simple documented single-purpose template repository.
CThe trouble with that view is that it breaks half of the purpose of the Ublue inheritance tree after the current restructuring, because it somewhat forces everyone who wants to make a custom image to start entirely from scratch and duplicate 80% of the Ublue project effort instead of just making a few tweaks
CMaking just a few tweaks to get what you want is only possible if you can choose where you want to start from
Bpersonally im not sure there is any point for startingpoint repo imo
CAnd I know it should still be possible to start from wherever you want, but the guidance to a separate branch "made for starting from" could do more damage than good just psychologically
Bhonestly in many ways main serves the same purpose
XAlso another hypothetical issue with Main being the template:
Say I want to layer Libreoffice in the native container, need Nvidia drivers, but don't want automatic updates for Flatpaks. I fork main and switch the upstream to the Nvidia image of my choosing, add in Libreoffice, all good. Then I disable automatic updates for flatpaks by instead of copying all RPMs from
That's where I go wrong! The Nvidia image is based on the main image, which already includes the automatic updates. To get rid of them, I actually have to imperatively remove them. There's no clear reason for that, after all, I forked and created a different main that doesn't add automatic updates. It's confusing.
The alternative; a barebones starting point where those options are not added, but you are provided instructions on what to add to the Containerfile to disable them.
Say I want to layer Libreoffice in the native container, need Nvidia drivers, but don't want automatic updates for Flatpaks. I fork main and switch the upstream to the Nvidia image of my choosing, add in Libreoffice, all good. Then I disable automatic updates for flatpaks by instead of copying all RPMs from
ublue-os/config just copying the ones I want.That's where I go wrong! The Nvidia image is based on the main image, which already includes the automatic updates. To get rid of them, I actually have to imperatively remove them. There's no clear reason for that, after all, I forked and created a different main that doesn't add automatic updates. It's confusing.
The alternative; a barebones starting point where those options are not added, but you are provided instructions on what to add to the Containerfile to disable them.
Bi disagree
Byou can always start from main, basically starting point is essentially main without opinions
XI actually view that the startingpoint's point is so that you don't have to duplicate the effort. Since you set FROM as an uBlue image, you get everything included in that. Since the starting point is created for the sole purpose of customizing the uBlue images, it should be easy to just add a couple of packages.
C...
the furthest upstream Ublue image is Main
the furthest upstream Ublue image is Main
XIt serves essentially a completely different purpose for the end-user.
Xyes?
Bdefine end-user
CIf you set FROM as the furthest upstream Ublue image with the absolute minimum added to it
then you are setting it to Main. You are bypassing starting point entirely and using Main.
then you are setting it to Main. You are bypassing starting point entirely and using Main.
CThe only thing starting point could do to add less is use the upstream Red Hat image
Bbecuase for most ublue end users starting point wont even be a blip, for those that it will they will be tinkers for whom using it wont mean a thing of difference between using it or going and forking main
CWhich would just be using the Red Hat image instead of Ublue
Xsomebody just wanting to install fedora silverblue on their computer who wants to have ublues autoupdates / drivers and other tweaks
CThey rebase to Main, or the QoL downstream.
Band if you wanna go into that indepth tinkering you should think about going to upstream
Bmost such somebodies will go for main
Bor fork main and remove those few bits that they dont want, starting point makes no sense unless you are tinkerer but at that point you are likely to want to either fork main if you wanna go that indepth or go upstream in this case actual fedora silverblue and pull in ublue changes you like
