| OpenVZ tools [message #7504] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 14:27  |
Dag Wieers
Messages: 9
Registered: October 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
We modified the vzyum tool and created a similar vzapt tool. But
while doing that I figured that the current infrastructure (written in
shell) is somewhat insufficient to create clean, proper reusable code.
Also the config-files are pretty shell-oriented.
Are there any plans to redo them ?
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
|
|
|
|
| [Devel] Re: OpenVZ tools [message #7506 is a reply to message #7504] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 14:51  |
|
|
Dag Wieers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We modified the vzyum tool and created a similar vzapt tool. But
> while doing that I figured that the current infrastructure (written in
> shell) is somewhat insufficient to create clean, proper reusable code.
>
> Also the config-files are pretty shell-oriented.
>
> Are there any plans to redo them ?
>
Dag,
To be honest -- I'd love to. I suppose you want Python -- this is fine
with me. It'd be great to start from scratch, but be aware that
developing/maintaining package management tools leads to endless pain
and suffering (I assume you probably know that already:)).
So, we can set up a git repo (and a component in bugzilla) and start
working on some "next-generation package management tools".
Although I do not see any problem with "shell-oriented" config files.
They are easy to edit and can be easily read from any code (be it C or
Perl or Python or whatever). So, can you be more specific and tell us
why you don't like such configs?
Finally, I propose to move the discussion to devel@ list (to'ed). If you
agree, please reply to devel@ only.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
|
|
|
|
| Re: [Users] OpenVZ tools [message #7509 is a reply to message #7506] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 15:02 |
Dag Wieers
Messages: 9
Registered: October 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > We modified the vzyum tool and created a similar vzapt tool. But
> > while doing that I figured that the current infrastructure (written in
> > shell) is somewhat insufficient to create clean, proper reusable code.
> >
> > Also the config-files are pretty shell-oriented.
> >
> > Are there any plans to redo them ?
>
> To be honest -- I'd love to. I suppose you want Python -- this is fine with
> me. It'd be great to start from scratch, but be aware that
> developing/maintaining package management tools leads to endless pain and
> suffering (I assume you probably know that already:)).
I have found that pain bearable. :)
I do prefer python, but any similar language will do.
> So, we can set up a git repo (and a component in bugzilla) and start working
> on some "next-generation package management tools".
That's fine.
> Although I do not see any problem with "shell-oriented" config files. They are
> easy to edit and can be easily read from any code (be it C or Perl or Python
> or whatever). So, can you be more specific and tell us why you don't like such
> configs?
I understand that switching would be hard. But a better syntax would allow
more interesting things. I like python's configuration format and syntax,
but anything better would do.
The shell-variable way of doing things is limited and prone to errors.
Plus I generally do not prefer the lowest common denominator as a standard
;-)
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Re: [Users] OpenVZ tools [message #7544 is a reply to message #7509] |
Tue, 17 October 2006 11:38 |
|
|
Dag Wieers wrote:
>> Although I do not see any problem with "shell-oriented" config files. They are
>> easy to edit and can be easily read from any code (be it C or Perl or Python
>> or whatever). So, can you be more specific and tell us why you don't like such
>> configs?
>>
>
> I understand that switching would be hard. But a better syntax would allow
> more interesting things. I like python's configuration format and syntax,
>
What is python's configuration format? Something like yum.conf? I.e.
almost-shell-style with sections denoted by [sectname]?
Or something else?
> but anything better would do.
>
> The shell-variable way of doing things is limited and prone to errors.
> Plus I generally do not prefer the lowest common denominator as a standard
I'm a bit scared by language-specific config formats. Seen a number of
cases when people use perl hashes in a config and just source those.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Re: [Users] OpenVZ tools [message #7579 is a reply to message #7509] |
Tue, 17 October 2006 18:58 |
Ola Lundqvist
Messages: 15
Registered: April 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi
Do you plan to do something based on debootstrap or something else?
Regards,
// Ola
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:02:51PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
>
> > Dag Wieers wrote:
> >
> > > We modified the vzyum tool and created a similar vzapt tool. But
> > > while doing that I figured that the current infrastructure (written in
> > > shell) is somewhat insufficient to create clean, proper reusable code.
> > >
> > > Also the config-files are pretty shell-oriented.
> > >
> > > Are there any plans to redo them ?
> >
> > To be honest -- I'd love to. I suppose you want Python -- this is fine with
> > me. It'd be great to start from scratch, but be aware that
> > developing/maintaining package management tools leads to endless pain and
> > suffering (I assume you probably know that already:)).
>
> I have found that pain bearable. :)
>
> I do prefer python, but any similar language will do.
>
>
> > So, we can set up a git repo (and a component in bugzilla) and start working
> > on some "next-generation package management tools".
>
> That's fine.
>
>
> > Although I do not see any problem with "shell-oriented" config files. They are
> > easy to edit and can be easily read from any code (be it C or Perl or Python
> > or whatever). So, can you be more specific and tell us why you don't like such
> > configs?
>
> I understand that switching would be hard. But a better syntax would allow
> more interesting things. I like python's configuration format and syntax,
> but anything better would do.
>
> The shell-variable way of doing things is limited and prone to errors.
> Plus I generally do not prefer the lowest common denominator as a standard
> ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
> -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
> [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
