On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Martin Polednik <mpoled...@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
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
