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? [1]https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:st...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Polednik" <mpolednik@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Cc: "Francesco" <fromani@redhat.com>, "Yaniv" <ybronhei@redhat.com>, "Vinzenz" <vfeenstr@redhat.com> 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?
I have a little preference for the second option. I don't mind that much about makefile proliferation because I still dream of switching to not-recursive build someday. [1][2][3] [1] https://autotools.io/automake/nonrecursive.html [2] I don't claim I am an autotools expert, I just find this idea *very* appealing from my developer-kinda-scared-by-autotools-I-touch-them-only-if-I-need-to PoV [3] Also not 100% sure this will improve things *for us*, but worth a serious shot. Bests, -- Francesco Romani RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D Phone: 8261328 IRC: fromani
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Martin Polednik <mpolednik@redhat.com> wrote:
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
Second approach is much better. More organized and more clean. It's more reasonable that way for developers, and having more makefiles is not a big deal.
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?
[1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:st...
-- *Yaniv Bronhaim.*
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Martin Polednik <mpolednik@redhat.com> wrote:
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?
For my two cents, I prefer the second option. One to one name matching is definitely preferable to renaming, in my opinion.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (4)
-
Francesco Romani -
Martin Polednik -
Phillip Bailey -
Yaniv Bronheim