Bug 1098718
| Summary: | RFE: virt-builder aliases | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] Virtualization Tools | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Component: | libguestfs | Assignee: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | unspecified | CC: | acathrow, mbooth, ptoscano |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-05-27 08:59:27 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2014-05-17 16:20:34 UTC
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #0) > We have guest types like 'centos-6' which mean "the latest version > of CentOS 6". ie. Currently that installs CentOS 6.5. > > Some users have asked me make available old versions of CentOS, > so we would have centos-6.0, centos-6.1, ..., centos-6.5. > > To avoid breaking existing users, 'centos-6' would then become > an alias for a particular os-version, eg. centos-6 -> centos-6.5 Good idea. > Suggested syntax (since we are using a proper parser): > > centos-6 -> centos-6.5 I'm not sure, where should it go like that? I was thinking about a simplier: [foo] ... aliases=foo-alias bar-alias I don't really have any strong preferences about this. One observation though: since all guest names are supposed to be "os-version", I think we can add section names like [global] or [aliases] without conflicting with existing guest names. However ... (In reply to Pino Toscano from comment #1) > I was thinking about a simplier: > [foo] > ... > aliases=foo-alias bar-alias isn't this backwards? (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2) > I don't really have any strong preferences about this. One > observation though: since all guest names are supposed to be > "os-version", I think we can add section names like [global] > or [aliases] without conflicting with existing guest names. Let's see whether we can come up with a solution that leaves the section names all available to the user. > (In reply to Pino Toscano from comment #1) > > I was thinking about a simplier: > > [foo] > > ... > > aliases=foo-alias bar-alias > > isn't this backwards? I'm not sure I get you here, why having an entry declare its aliases should be backward? > > (In reply to Pino Toscano from comment #1)
> > > I was thinking about a simplier:
> > > [foo]
> > > ...
> > > aliases=foo-alias bar-alias
> >
> > isn't this backwards?
>
> I'm not sure I get you here, why having an entry declare its aliases should
> be backward?
I think this example is clearer:
[centos-6.5]
... other fields ...
alias=centos-6
which is fine.
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4) > > > (In reply to Pino Toscano from comment #1) > > > > I was thinking about a simplier: > > > > [foo] > > > > ... > > > > aliases=foo-alias bar-alias > > > > > > isn't this backwards? > > > > I'm not sure I get you here, why having an entry declare its aliases should > > be backward? > > I think this example is clearer: > > [centos-6.5] > ... other fields ... > alias=centos-6 > > which is fine. Yes, this is basically what I proposed too, just allowing multiple aliases for each entry, so in the example above you could have both "centos-6" and "centos" as aliases for the most recent CentOS version. This has been committed as https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/commit/e4005bd530aab62a8d86cfc7cb5db1c69ae873dd which is in libguestfs >= 1.27.14. |