(adding netcf-devel to the Cc list)
On 01/06/2011 10:02 PM, Patrick Mullaney wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:00 -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
Laine Stump wrote:
As far as I know, the SuSE port was actually complete at one time, and
was included in a released product (not sure what the product is),
It hasn't been included in a product yet, but might be in upcoming
openSUSE 11.4.
Right. As far as I know, it should be in opensuse 11.4. I haven't
heard otherwise. My plan was to upstream the patches but I got
sidetracked with some other projects.
Ah, you're talking about a completely different effort - the SuSE port I
was talking about is referenced here:
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2009-June/000092.html
I pinged Jonas about it a couple months ago, and learned that they had
updated their patches and were actually using it (when I said "product",
I wasn't talking about the OS itself, but something based on the OS),
but hadn't had the resources to clean it up for upstream.
After searching the list archives for mail from Patrick, I now see this
message:
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2010-May/000415.html
(and a response from David Lutterkort), and even recall reading it, but
when I went through old mail in the Fall looking for people doing
porting work, I found the earlier messages from Jonas first and sent him
mail, then neglected to continue looking for other people working
separately on the same platform.
My patches touch drv_initscripts.c, initscripts-get.xsl, and
initscripts-put.xsl. The xsl files are slightly different because
our ifcfg syntax is slightly different. I also have a couple new
augeas lenses that we need for our network configuration to work.
I'll try to apply it against head and send it out to the list soon.
It's good to hear that you've got it working. It will be nice when we no
longer have to tell so many people on #virt "well, if your distro had
netcf, you could do 'x', but since it doesn't, you'll need to do it by
hand".
How would you recommend handling the files above and the build
for different distros? Should they just be drv_suse.c,
initscripts-get-suse.xsl, and initscripts-put-suse.xsl and then
changed back during the build?
If the changes to drv_initscripts.c aren't too drastic, and can easily
be #ifdef'ed, I think it would be preferable to just keep the single
file there, to avoid maintenance problems with duplicated code; there's
nothing that says each supported platform needs its own drv_*.c file
(Fedora and RHEL already use drv_initscripts.c, for example).
If you think the changes are too big (maybe it ends up with 80% of the
file being inside #ifdefs), but there is still some common code, it
might be appropriate to move all the non-common things out of
drv_initscripts.c into drv_fedora-rhel.c, then have suse's build include
both drv_initscripts.c and drv_suse.c (likewise for fedora-rhel).
(For that matter, at that point, maybe drv_initscripts.c could be
renamed to dutil_initscripts.c (as long as there are no toplevel drv_*()
functions), and it could maybe get some of the functions from
dutil_linux.c that are really only applicable to initscripts-based systems.)
For the xsl files, I'm not really competent to render an opinion there.
I would say, though, that if it's possible to avoid duplicating
identical parts of those files (by some sort of conditionalizing in a
single file, or maybe splitting each file into a "common between all
initscripts platforms" and "specific to platform a", that would be
preferable. Otherwise, having separate files and copying them into
"initscripts-(get|put).xsl" during the build would be fine. (If you do
that, part of your patch should maybe be to move the current versions of
those files into "initscripts-fedora-rhel-(get|put).xsl", and add the
same build step to that port.)
There really are no hard/fast rules, though, as there is not yet any
precedent.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list