Joe Batt wrote:
I disagree. /bin/sh makes a very flexible config file format that I
use. I use it on win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
The problem with only taking command line arguments is that the number
and size of command line arguments are severely limited on certain
platforms. This is why almost every sufficiently aged/portable program
supports either a config file or a method of taking command line options
via a file. The later is really just a particular format of a config file.
If you care about scripting QEMU, then just do something like:
qemu -config - <<EOF
hda=${myhda}
hdb=${myhdb}
EOF
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
I would prefer that you write another cross platform shell, than
another config file. At least that way I could use the same config
tool for more than one application.
Everytime this comes up, do I have to disagree again, so that my voice
is not lost?
Any yes, adding features that I do not use increases the complexity
and decreases the stability of the features I do use, so it would
effect me. I have the same feeling about embedding VNC
authentication, the samba server, etc.
Joe
On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
There's also no reason to limit to 7 disks, and we should support
scsi
cdroms.
The reason for 7 is the number of available id on the scsi bus.
For wide scsi it is 15.
I wouldn't bet on wide scsi working.
For PCI based systems you can add more host adapters to get more
devices. I haven't actually tested this, but it should work.
I think most people agree that we need a config file. I haven't seen
any comments on my config file patch though.
So, any comments on that patch? Any requirements on a format?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Paul
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
