Re: [ovirt-devel] Moving configuration files to separate directory

2016-08-03 Thread Phillip Bailey 
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Martin Polednik 
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

Re: [ovirt-devel] Moving configuration files to separate directory

2016-08-02 Thread Yaniv Bronheim 
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Martin Polednik 
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
>

Second approach is much better. More organized and more clean. It's more
reasonable that way for developers, and having more makefiles is not a big
deal.


> 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?
>
> [1]
> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:static-assets
>



-- 
*Yaniv Bronhaim.*
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [ovirt-devel] Moving configuration files to separate directory

2016-08-02 Thread Francesco Romani 
- Original Message -
> From: "Martin Polednik" 
> To: devel@ovirt.org
> Cc: "Francesco" , "Yaniv" , 
> "Vinzenz" 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:06:06 AM
> Subject: Moving configuration files to separate directory
> 
> 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 -
[...]
> we could structure the directory to a corresponding subfolders over
> the system:
[...]
> 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?

I have a little preference for the second option. I don't mind that much about 
makefile
proliferation because I still dream of switching to not-recursive build 
someday. [1][2][3]

[1] https://autotools.io/automake/nonrecursive.html
[2] I don't claim I am an autotools expert, I just find this idea *very* 
appealing from my
developer-kinda-scared-by-autotools-I-touch-them-only-if-I-need-to PoV
[3] Also not 100% sure this will improve things *for us*, but worth a serious 
shot.

Bests,

-- 
Francesco Romani
RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D
Phone: 8261328
IRC: fromani
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[ovirt-devel] Moving configuration files to separate directory

2016-08-02 Thread Martin Polednik 

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?

[1]https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:static-assets
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel