On 03/29/2011 08:41 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > On 03/29/2011 08:19 AM, Simon Lukasik wrote: >> (A) A big part of the code depends directly on python-rpm. >> We don't want 'import rpm' on Debian nor 'import apt' on Fedora. >> (B) /etc/sysconfig does not exist on Debian > > I would suggest to use /etc/default/rhn. /etc/default is Debian > equivalent for /etc/sysconfig. More or less. > The problem is not, that I cannot find an equivalent, the problem is, how to separate the code.
>> (C) redhat-release does not exist on Debian > /etc/debian_version > or > lsb_release -r > or > lsb_release -c So You suggest to require lsb from rhn-client-tools? It's not necessarily needed, but it would make things easier, yes. > >> (D) Architecture names are slightly different > Yeah, but we already have Debian architecture in DB and rhnpush count > with it, right? Not exactly, but yes. Now we treat i686 as an i386. Which might not be ultimate solution for an Ubuntus. > >> Potential solutions: > > My priorities: > >> (1) Create a Debian patch, and apply it only when building the .deb >> package. It is easier for start, but the patch needs to be maintained. > > +1 > >> (2) Modify upstream rhn-client-tools, to include bits for both: Debian & >> Fedora and choose one during a build-time. > > +3 > >> (3) Same as (2) but in run-time. (polymorphism). > > +2 > >> (4) interleave with if-else: >> if getPlatform() == 'deb': import apt >> else: import rpm > +2 > >> (5) Still there is an option to write rhn-client-tools from scratch. >> (Design new interface). I doubt anybody likes that. > > -10 > > I see, build-time (2) has scored. I will look at this option focusing on Python's distutils. Assuming that sed (see current Makefile) and Python's preprocesor are not preferred ways. Will see, -- Simon Lukasik _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
