From: "Martin Polednik" <mpolednik(a)redhat.com&gt; To: devel(a)ovirt.org Cc: "Francesco" <fromani(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Yaniv" <ybronhei(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Vinzenz" <vfeenstr(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:06:06 AM Subject: Moving configuration files to separate directory Hey devels, last week, I've been working on patch series that moves most of configuration and "static" files away from our source code to a dir called "static"[1]. (based on the previous' week VDSM weekly) Current version has static dir's layout as flat - keeping all files in the directory with few exceptions (mom.d and systemd). The downside of the approach is that we still have to rename some of the files in makefile due to possibility of name clashes if we had similarly named files (50_vdsm from sudoers and 50_vdsm anything else). There is another possibility - hierarchy within the folder. Instead of current structure -

we could structure the directory to a corresponding subfolders over the system:

There is little downside to the second approach, that is more code is added to VDSM in a sense that more makefiles will have to exist. On the other hand, we can drop all the renaming and have the files named as they would be named on their destination after install. Opinions?

Hey devels, last week, I've been working on patch series that moves most of configuration and "static" files away from our source code to a dir called "static"[1]. (based on the previous' week VDSM weekly) Current version has static dir's layout as flat - keeping all files in the directory with few exceptions (mom.d and systemd). The downside of the approach is that we still have to rename some of the files in makefile due to possibility of name clashes if we had similarly named files (50_vdsm from sudoers and 50_vdsm anything else). There is another possibility - hierarchy within the folder. Instead of current structure - static ├── Makefile.am ├── limits.conf ├── logger.conf.in ├── mom.conf.in ├── mom.d │ ├── 00-defines.policy │ ├── 01-parameters.policy │ ├── 02-balloon.policy │ ├── 03-ksm.policy │ ├── 04-cputune.policy │ ├── 05-iotune.policy │ └── Makefile.am ├── sudoers.vdsm.in ├── svdsm.logger.conf.in ├── systemd │ ├── Makefile.am │ ├── mom-vdsm.service.in │ ├── supervdsmd.service.in │ ├── vdsm-network.service.in │ └── vdsmd.service.in ├── vdsm-bonding-modprobe.conf ├── vdsm-logrotate.conf ├── vdsm-modules-load.d.conf ├── vdsm-sysctl.conf └── vdsm.rwtab.in we could structure the directory to a corresponding subfolders over the system: etc ├── modprobe.d │ └── vdsm-bonding-modprobe.conf ├── modules-load.d │ └── vdsm.conf ├── rwtab.d │ └── vdsm ├── security │ └── limits.d │ └── 99-vdsm.conf ├── sudoers.d │ ├── 50_vdsm ├── sysctl.d │ └── vdsm.conf └── vdsm ├── logger.conf ├── logrotate │ └── vdsm ├── mom.conf ├── mom.d │ ├── 00-defines.policy │ ├── 01-parameters.policy │ ├── 02-balloon.policy │ ├── 03-ksm.policy │ ├── 04-cputune.policy │ └── 05-iotune.policy ├── svdsm.logger.conf ├── vdsm.conf └── vdsm.conf.d There is little downside to the second approach, that is more code is added to VDSM in a sense that more makefiles will have to exist. On the other hand, we can drop all the renaming and have the files named as they would be named on their destination after install. Opinions?

_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel