[xen-tools] Re: Outstanding bugs/requests for 3.0?

[Henning Sprang]

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?

Great!
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
config file.
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
ambiguity.
(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
me...)

> [...]
>   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.

Henning