On Sat, 05 Mar 2022, Steve Dickson wrote: > Hey! > > On 3/3/22 8:13 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Mar 2022, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 14:26 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Chuck Lever III wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The remaining part of this text probably should be > >>>> part of the man page for Ben's tool, or whatever is > >>>> coming next. > >>> > >>> My position is that there is no need for any tool. The total amount > >>> of > >>> code needed is a couple of lines as presented in the text below. Why > >>> provide a wrapper just for that? > >>> We *cannot* automatically decide how to find a name or where to store > >>> a > >>> generated uuid, so there is no added value that a tool could provide. > >>> > >>> We cannot unilaterally fix container systems. We can only tell > >>> people > >>> who build these systems of the requirements for NFS. > >>> > >> > >> I disagree with this position. The value of having a standard tool is > >> that it also creates a standard for how and where the uniquifier is > >> generated and persisted. > >> > >> Otherwise you have to deal with the fact that you may have a systemd > >> script that persists something in one file, a Dockerfile recipe that > >> generates something at container build time, and then a home-made > >> script that looks for something in a different location. If you're > >> trying to debug why your containers are all generating the same > >> uniquifier, then that can be a problem. > > > > I don't see how a tool can provide any consistency. > > Is there some standard that say how containers should be built, and > > where tools can store persistent data? If not, the tool needs to be > > configured, and that is not importantly different from bash being > > configured with a 1-line script to write out the identifier. > > > > I'm not strongly against a tools, I just can't see the benefit. > I think I agree with this... Thinking about it... having a command that > tries to manipulate different containers in different ways just > seems like a recipe for disaster... I just don't see how a command would > ever get it right... Hell we can't agree on its command's name > much less what it will do. :-) > > So I like idea of documenting when needs to happen in the > different types of containers... So I think the man page > is the way to go... and I think it is the safest way to go. > > Chuck, if you would like tweak the verbiage... by all means. > > Neil, will be a V2 for man page patch from this discussion > or should I just take the one you posted? If you do post > a V2, please start a new thread. I'll post a V2. Chuck made some excellent structural suggestions. Thanks, NeilBrown
