Zitat von Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn <[email protected]>:
2012/3/22 Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]>:
Didn't anybody ever try to install according to the instructions in
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/quickstart.rst on a
bare machine?
Yes, lots of people do that. That works to install tahoe-lafs and make
the "bin/tahoe" script work. It also installs foolscap, since
tahoe-lafs depends on foolscap, but it does not create a
"bin/flogtool" script (akin to the "bin/tahoe" script), because we
hadn't previously considered flogtool to be part of what tahoe-lafs is
providing.
Thanks, Zooko, for explaining that, in hindsight it seems obvious. Please
forget the sarcasm in the paragraph above, it wasn't ment as it may sound, its
just the frustration of a newcomer to a complex tool who got stuck, after all
went so well up to now. :-)
However, your story illustrates that perhaps we should! Since, after
all, it is necessary to get logging information and our docs instruct
you to use it.
Right!
I'm not sure of the best way to do so. The cheapest way out is to add
a line of doc to logging.rst saying "Just because tahoe-lafs uses
foolscap and automatically resolves its dependency on foolscap doesn't
mean that building tahoe-lafs automatically makes a working 'flogtool'
script for you. To get a working 'flogtool', you'll have to install
foolscap manually.".
I'd add that adding site-packages from support the python path is ok and
suffictient for runnig flogtool. (what about the other scripts in support/bin,
btw.?)
As a new user of some complex piece of software, I'm not going to add random
parts of its distribution to the path, when something doesn't work, without
understanding beforehand what I'm doing there, but try to follow the
instructions by the letter.
An interesting possibility would be to extend the "tahoe" script to do
all of the flogtool functionality.
Yes, that sounds plausible. If memory serves me right, there is a ticket somewhere which
discussed something similar. I looked into the "tahoe" script before asking my
question, but as it seems, that script does a lot more than just adding something to the
python path, so I gave up there.
This would no doubt go under the
"tahoe debug" sub-command, along with sundry other utilities, and...
oh! There's already a feature of "tahoe debug" that can help with
this. Run "./bin/tahoe debug --help" and read about the "arbitrary
'runner' command". If I understand it correctly, this means that the
following command should run flogtool from any tahoe-lafs directory:
./bin/tahoe @./support/bin/flogtool
I'll try that and report back.
Oh, but that will work only if flogtool was written into ./support by
the build process, which will happen only if foolscap was not already
present on your system when you built.
It wasn't.
I'm still kind of intrigued about the notion of the "bin/tahoe"
command acquiring all of the functionality of flogtool, because it
makes me wonder if tahoe-specific extensions of flogtool would then
arise. Like, would it be useful to have a command that gatherers logs
from all of your storage servers (those which have opted in by
publishing a logport.furl) and aggregated their logs? Interesting...
I've opened #1693 to track this issue.
I'll perhaps add a few thoughts to if, after learning a bit more about the
matter.
Thanks again for your help!
Wolfgang
--
ws
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
