Re: [Libvir] [patch 3/3] Add libvirt_qemud init script
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name libvirt_qemud.
I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update. That question aside, the patches all look fine to me. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name libvirt_qemud.
I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update.
Sounds good to me, how about just re-naming the daemon to libvirtd too ? Cheers, Mark.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:29:38PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name libvirt_qemud.
I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update.
Sounds good to me, how about just re-naming the daemon to libvirtd too ?
That'll cause a bit of an annoying namespace clash with Rich's existing code for libvirtd. I think it'll be fine to keep it as libvirt_qemud for now, because the user will never be directly exposed to this name, it'll either autospawn (unprivileged users), or be started indirectly with the init script. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:29:38PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name libvirt_qemud. I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update. Sounds good to me, how about just re-naming the daemon to libvirtd too ?
That'll cause a bit of an annoying namespace clash with Rich's existing code for libvirtd. I think it'll be fine to keep it as libvirt_qemud for now, because the user will never be directly exposed to this name, it'll either autospawn (unprivileged users), or be started indirectly with the init script.
Isn't the plan to combine the two daemons at some point? Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ 64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF Mobile: +44 7866 314 421 "[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively obvious and simple" (Francis Maseres FRS, mathematician, 1759)
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:04:47PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:29:38PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name libvirt_qemud. I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update. Sounds good to me, how about just re-naming the daemon to libvirtd too ?
That'll cause a bit of an annoying namespace clash with Rich's existing code for libvirtd. I think it'll be fine to keep it as libvirt_qemud for now, because the user will never be directly exposed to this name, it'll either autospawn (unprivileged users), or be started indirectly with the init script.
Isn't the plan to combine the two daemons at some point?
Yes, that's why I wanted a single init script just called 'libvirtd' - so even if we do have 2 separate daemons for a short while - when we do get around to combining them the user doesn't have to use a different init script. Basically want to hide the libvirt_qemud from direct sight at an admin level in expectation that it will go away in favour of the general purpose daemon. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Mark McLoughlin -
Richard W.M. Jones