Dan Smith wrote: > DL> That makes sense to me. I guess I'd lean towards leaving <init> > DL> in the container block since a container isn't really starting a > DL> new os image. Perhaps Dan Smith has some comments on this... > > Oh I *always* have some comments... :) > > From the above example, <init> would be the only member of > <container>, right? That seems broken to me, unless there are other > things planned to be in <container>. Right. For a container, <init> would be the only member of <os> as well right? At the moment, I don't know of anything else that we will be adding to <container>. > > In the context of a container, the value of <init> seems suited for > the <os> block. From the view of a component that consumes the > libvirt XML interface, I think I'd prefer avoiding more domain-level > nodes, and would rather the relevant information be packed into > existing areas (such as <os> and <devices>) instead of adding a new > one (<containers>). > I guess my only hangup there is the case where the value of <init> specifies something that is not an init like application. In that case, at least to me, it seems less suited there. Of course, I don't know how likely or feasible such a use would be. I can definitely agree with your comments from a consumers perspective. I don't have a big problem with moving <init> to the <os> block. -- Best Regards, Dave Leskovec IBM Linux Technology Center Open Virtualization -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list