On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 19:49 -0300, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On 05/30/2012 06:48 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 14:41 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > >> On 30.05.2012 [18:26:58 -0300], Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 14:23 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > >>>> On 26.05.2012 [18:03:31 -0300], Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 16:31 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > >>>>>> Sometimes there are firewalls between test machines and the greater > >>>>>> Internet, so it seems unwise to depend upon external network access in > >>>>>> the boottool/grubby building code. But some sites won't have those > >>>>>> restrictions. Add the ability to configure a local mirror for the > >>>>>> grubby > >>>>>> tarball in the CLIENT section, but default to the external location. > >>>>> The problem with this patch is that makes boottool dependent on autotest > >>>>> libraries, when the script itself is sometimes used in a stand alone > >>>>> fashion. Therefore, I can't accept this as is. > >>>> Ah makes sense. I didn't realize boottool was used stand-alone, sorry. > >>>> > >>>>> Cleber, I believe we should try to locate and download boottool from the > >>>>> copy present in the autotest tree, before trying to reach out to github. > >>>>> What do you say? > >>>> Ah I didn't even realize there was one in client/deps/grubby -- so, > >>>> would we try and push it out with the rest of autotest? I'm not sure > >>>> pulling will work, as the client/deps/grubby path isn't guaranteed (nor > >>>> is it setup to be, afaict) part of the web-exposed path. > >>> This is what I'd like to do, find a way to ensure the grubby tarball > >>> gets copied when the client is installed. This way we wouldn't ever have > >>> to resort to an external copy. > > Well, did you guys miss the response I posted a couple of days ago? > Copying it again: > > --- > > On client mode that is definitely the best thing to do. But that would > fail on server mode. > > I suggest that boottool looks for the grubby tarball on those locations: > > 1) current directory (would solve server mode if we also send the > tarball to the client) > 2) autotest source tree > 3) remote github uri > > How does that sound? > > --- > > So, adding that to the rsync'd path list sounds like implementing #2. #1 > is still needed, and number #3 is a fallback that may be skipped. > > Are we all on the same page here?
Yes, we are, implementing 1) and 2) is exactly what I had in mind. _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list Autotest@test.kernel.org http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
