HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
stb-tester
apt2ostree
Python2021–2023
stb-tester / apt2ostree

apt2ostree

Build ostree images based on Debian/Ubuntu

Creative & Media
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
2Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
127GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Build ostree images based on Debian/Ubuntu

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2021-10-12 13:39:44 UTC to 2023-01-13 05:55:39 UTC.

0122021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 commentsOct 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsMay 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 2023

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 20212021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Nov 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20212021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20222022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20222022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20222022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20222022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20222022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20222022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20222022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
chubot·Jan 13, 2023
Hm yes now I remember that point about how the file system targets are anonymous Python objects that you can pass around to functions. Are there any open source examples? I looked around the github account, but I mostly remember this tool https://github.com/stb-tester/apt2ostree I'd be interested in seeing the Python config and Ninja output, to see how it works. Right now it looks to me like the dependencies are more implicit than explicit, e.g. with your copen example --- The system I ended up with is more like Bazel, but it's not building containers, so it's a slightly different problem (although I guess Bazel can do that now too). But I'm interested in building containers incrementally without 'docker build'. I made some notes on #containers in the oilshell Zulip about incorrect incremental builds with docker build. It's also slow
Read the rest
and has a bunch of ad hoc mechanisms to speed it up I like the apt lockfile idea definitely ... However I also have a bunch of other source tarballs and testdata files, that I might not want to check into git. How do you handle those -- put them in OSTree? Our config looks like this https://github.com/oilshell/oil/blob/master/core/NINJA_subgr... and there are other /NINJA_subgraph.py files. The library they all use is in build/ninja* of the same repo. Thanks for any details!
In Why Use Make (2013)
wmanley·Oct 12, 2021
On the subject of reproducible debian-based environments I wrote apt2ostree[1]. It applies the cargo/npm lockfile idea to debian rootfs images. From a list of packages we perform dependency resolution and generate a "lockfile" that contains the complete list of all packages, their versions and their SHAs. You can commit this lockfile to git. You can then install Debian or Ubuntu into a chroot just based on this lockfile and end up with a functionally reproducible result. It won't be completely byte identical as your SSH keys, machine-id, etc. will be different between installations, but you'll always end up with the same packages and package versions installed for a given lockfile. This has saved us on a few occasions where an apt upgrade had broken the workflow of some of our customers. We could see exactly which package versions cha
Read the rest
nged in git history and roll-back the problematic package before working on fixing it properly. This is vastly better than the traditional `RUN apt-get install -y blah blah` you see in `Dockerfile`s. You know exactly what was installed before an update and exactly what is installed after and you can rebuild old versions. IMO it's also more convenient than debootstrap as you don't need to worry about gpg keys, etc. when building the image. Dependency resolution and gpg key stuff is done at lockfile generation time, so the installation process can be much simpler. In theory it could be made such that only dpkg is required to do the install, rather than the whole of apt, but that's by-the-by. apt2ostree itself is probably not interesting to most people as it depends on ostree and ninja but I think the lockfile concept as applied to debian repos could be of much broader interest. [1]: https://github.com/stb-tester/apt2ostree#lockfiles [2]: https://ostreedev.github.io/ostree/
In Reproducible builds for Debian: a big step forward

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.