On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:02:13PM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote: > On Thursday, 27.08.2015 at 10:56, Wei Liu wrote: > > Hi all > > > > Currently all targets of rumpbake are hardcoded. That means I can't > > control what rump components are linked in to the final binary. That's > > not very desirable for power users. Being the first one to have such > > needs I can certainly foresee other users in the future want to do the > > same. > > > > I would like to make rumpbake more flexible. That could be done by > > either getting rid of the positional arguments or making it accept user > > provided config file. > > > > The syntax of rumpbake being experimental means we can get away with any > > breakage at this stage. > > > > Thoughts? > > This is one of the questions that came up at my talk at the Xen summit: > "How do you determine which rump components you need to run X?" > > My answer was that normal users should not have to care and get the > "kitchen sink" by default. If you want to change the defaults, you can edit > app-tools/rumpbake.conf to your liking. > > Is there something in particular that you need which is not covered by > editing the configuration file? >
Editing the configuration file works fine for me at the moment because I build everything including the toolchain. It's just not nice and might not work all the time -- considering rumpbake is going to be installed by packaging system and the default rumpbake.conf buried in some directories that user of the toolchain doesn't have permission to edit. Also editing the config file requires users to understand the implementation of rumpbake. Arguably it's just a simple shell script but I don't think end user should really know that much about that. Wei.
