[xen-tools] Re: Outstanding bugs/requests for 3.0?
henning_sprang at gmx.de
Tue Nov 28 18:28:27 CET 2006
On 11/28/06, Steve Kemp <steve at steve.org.uk> wrote:
> 3. If --config=foo.conf then read /etc/xen-tools/foo.conf
> (Or the file if qualified).
> That would easily allow you to complete "hostname=xxx \n size= 999\n"
> from that file with only one parameter.
> Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
I'd need to try using it to get a feeling, but it Sounds good so far,
does what I wanted.
O.K., in that case, --hostname would only be a requirement when
--config is not set, and an error would thrown if after reading them
all no hostname would be specified?
Maybe --config is not a sensible enough name 'cause it's often used as
a "replacement" for the main config file, not an addition/overloading
I have no better idea right now
> It doesn't help much with scripting the xen.cfg file which is
> generated however you could use templates for that and specify
> "template=xxx" in each configuration file.
Hmm, I don't understand exactly what you mean here. My idea with
template scripting was only a thought if my wish for the "presets"
solved above could somehow be done with this - and I was'nt thinking
config file scripting in the readily made config file (which I do
anyway, e.g. do decide net install start from normal runtime start).
> > And one usability thing that's probably really easy: on one hand, it's
> > nice to have less typing when deleting domains with xen-delete-imags
> > HOSTNAME, on the other hand, it's not consistent with the creation
> > syntax. I'd kind of expect the delete program take the same argument
> > to destroy the image as the creation program.
> It seems redundant to me to specify --hostname=xxx rather than
> just "xxx". Since we're only ever talking about hostnames/image names.
> I could overload the script to accept both if you liked. I have no
> preference either way.
Uff, I am not usability expert enough to decide this. On the one hand,
having both work with the same options seems logical - on the other
hand, having xen-delete-image understand both might be a strange
(It reminds me a bit of the developers who made a "preferences" menu
entry in each menu of the gui application "beast", because they
couldn't decide where to place it :) )
So, I'm also undecided.
> > XenSource version does (vmlinuz-2.6) - maybe it's worth a wishlist bug
> > against the xen kernel package?
> Wishlist bug wouldn't go amiss, but I dont think I'm the right person
> to add this. I think it belongs in the debian/postinst file.
Yeah, I know you aren't responsible for the xen kernel packages :)
I have to write another report for them anyway, as I need nfs root and
ip autoconfig in the xen domU kernel to use it with fai anyway...
(only then xen-tools xen-kernel "autosensing" would be useful for
> Worst case is it guesses wrong and you have to fix it. Best
> case you have no need to fix things. One for the maintainers I guess.
Sounds good as described.
More information about the xen-tools-discuss