scripts/BuildScripts/BuildCommon.mk: unique names for development images

[austin987]

For your consideration.

I often have a few branches in play, and end up manually renaming images when testing something. Got tired of that, came up with this, figured I'd upstream it. If not interested, no worries, I'll maintain it locally.

[SolidHal]

I think this is a great improvement! definitely handy.
FYI it breaks ci since the images end up as different names, I'll take care of it after the merge though.

[SolidHal]

hmm, maybe CI doesn't end up with a branch name? This is the image name it ends up with:
PrawnOS-Shiba-armhf-git--3870b05651d1aac4b9a05fd23fc8b8aff30cf1b0.img
that double - indicates to me PRAWNOS_GIT_BRANCH is empty

[SolidHal]

Seems github CI doesn't use a branch, and instead just has a checkout at the sha.
Could you add a case to catch this situation? maybe if the PRAWNOS_GIT_BRANCH variable is empty, set it as NOBRANCH? I'm open to other suggestions here.

Second request: could you modify build-image.sh and the github workflows to match this new naming scheme?

Final thought: What happens if the image is built on a sha but there are a bunch of uncommitted changes? Could we indicate somehow that its a modified version of that sha? This isn't required at all, more just an idea.

Thanks again for this. I think this change makes a lot of sense overall. :)

[austin987]

Sure, I'll take a look.

I ignored the CI failures since it's been broken so much lately (I know I originally added it, and I do care, but as you pointed out before, it's not currently reliable, so I didn't consider it a blocker).

At some point I may look at moving to a container based solution, but I have other things I'd like to see done first (and when I tried in containers, things didn't work so well either for me, maybe it's improved since then).

[SolidHal]

I actually fixed the CI a week or so ago, so it should be reliable again :)

[austin987]

Note: as they're semi-related, continuing discussion on #250.