I like that you moved the commands to build the ISO from iso-build.yaml to build_iso.sh. Keep in mind that it is making it difficult to contribute to this project with the ever expanding size of your PyParted pull request which appears to me as it will be merged since it contains critical improvements.

It seems your comment only addresses the discussion title and makes no acknowledgement of the discussion body.

I think reworking the workflows is a good idea, they aren't really doing what they should be doing right now I think.

Could you expand on this? What changes to the workflows would have them "doing what they should be doing"?

Agreed, I'd be very thrilled on getting it merged and then everyone can do changes based on it rather than working off master and most contributors may not rven know about the large change coming.

I updated the workflows in the PR as they don't detect any dependency failures or issues atm which you had already found during testing as well. Installing archinstall with the listed steps there doesn't actually install dependencies.

• Building the arch iso is a good step, but it doesn't actually test if archinstall is running fine

• building the package is done but running archinstall is jot which could fail

• when installing the packages verifying that the root structure is as expected

Right, the package.yml workflow would be just to test that the package can successfully be built from the triggering commit. Again, with it we could also have an artifact that contains the built package which is useful in itself but could also be used for the ISO build workflow.

I agree that the workflows could use the additional tests that you proposed. I see them as separate from a workflow for building the package but you bring up a great point which is the build of the package can succeed when dependencies are missing.