I tested by doing a full run, and then doing a run with --no-rootfs, and both passed, so this seems like a sensible explanation.
I guess the issue is that --no-rootfs doesn't guard against partitioning; we could either go the route of adding a --no-partitioning flag, or the other way around kill --no-rootfs support.
I tested by doing a full run, and then doing a run with --no-rootfs, and both passed, so this seems like a sensible explanation.
I guess the issue is that --no-rootfs doesn't guard against partitioning; we could either go the route of adding a --no-partitioning flag, or the other way around kill --no-rootfs support.