Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 23.80952% with 16 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 33.85%. Comparing base (2602d59) to head (728df52).
Report is 67 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #628      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   32.51%   33.85%   +1.34%     
==========================================
  Files          17       18       +1     
  Lines        1621     1527      -94     
==========================================
- Hits          527      517      -10     
+ Misses       1062      977      -85     
- Partials       32       33       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

do we still need this with the source policies? https://project-copacetic.github.io/copacetic/website/faq#can-i-replace-the-package-repositories-in-the-image-with-my-own

After taking a look, this could potentially be seen as redundant. Do we still want a user flag for this kind of behaviour, or do we want the user to pass in these custom values exclusively via BuildKit source policies?

If this PR is still wanted, please let me know so I can make the necessary changes before it gets merged. I noticed this morning that I forgot to add some logic in dpkg.go to pass the new variable into the appropriate functions if a custom tooling repo is passed in.