[xen-tools] Re: Various potential modifications

[Jeff Forcier]

On 10/2/07, Steve Kemp <steve at steve.org.uk> wrote:

>   I don't see why not.  After all I regard the auto-generation as
>  a neat thing for people who create a *lot* of machines, rather than
>  the average user.
>
>   Besides a simple look like this will do the job:
>
>   for i in $(seq 100 200) ; do echo "192.168.1.$i" >> ip.list; done

Fair enough :) I will admit I hadn't realized it would be that simple;
I tend to forget about 'seq' until someone reminds me - my
shell-script fu is regrettably weak. Thanks for the example.

>   I'd be happy if there were two files, like this:
>
>     available ->  Having a range
>     used      ->  Recording the ones used.
>
>   (Probably need better names than that though!)

Honestly, given the use of 'seq' above, I think it probably *is*
easiest/simplest to rely on a single file with a prepopulated range;
especially if the earlier example is added to the manpage section
about this topic I imagine it would suffice for most people with this
need. Adding to an existing range is just as easy as creating one,
too, given the >> operator (although growing a range "downwards" might
be less trivial unless there's an equivalent 'prepend' operator that
I'm unaware of - but again this is getting pretty "out there" IMO).

>   I honestly can't recall, and looking at the code it looks like I
>  was mistaken.  Sorry!  I'll restore the previous behaviour ASAP.

Thanks :) I may poke around myself to try and figure out where it was
done, I figure I may end up learning some Perl via immersion out of
all this. Otherwise I'll eagerly await your next checkin :)

>   Ahh that does make more sense.  I think the general case would be
>  hard.  But a roles script is probably the way forward there .. <snip>

Agreed, thanks for the pointers.

>  I like the idea of allowing people to make changes like this, but
>  at the same time I don't want to add lots of special cases just to
>  please one person at the expense of making things overly complicated
>  for other users, if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense - that's always the struggle with OSS development,
trying to discern where a given feature lies along the gradient from
one-off use-cases to things that are unanimously applicable to all
users. I can't make that call as I'm not the developer here, and won't
suppose to suggest otherwise :)

Thanks as always,
Jeff

P.S. Thanks Sascha & C.J., those tips both look useful =)