(adding netcf-devel to the Cc list) On 01/06/2011 10:02 PM, Patrick Mullaney wrote: Ah, you're talking about a completely different effort - the SuSE port I was talking about is referenced here: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2009-June/000092.html I pinged Jonas about it a couple months ago, and learned that they had updated their patches and were actually using it (when I said "product", I wasn't talking about the OS itself, but something based on the OS), but hadn't had the resources to clean it up for upstream. After searching the list archives for mail from Patrick, I now see this message: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2010-May/000415.html (and a response from David Lutterkort), and even recall reading it, but when I went through old mail in the Fall looking for people doing porting work, I found the earlier messages from Jonas first and sent him mail, then neglected to continue looking for other people working separately on the same platform. It's good to hear that you've got it working. It will be nice when we no longer have to tell so many people on #virt "well, if your distro had netcf, you could do 'x', but since it doesn't, you'll need to do it by hand". If the changes to drv_initscripts.c aren't too drastic, and can easily be #ifdef'ed, I think it would be preferable to just keep the single file there, to avoid maintenance problems with duplicated code; there's nothing that says each supported platform needs its own drv_*.c file (Fedora and RHEL already use drv_initscripts.c, for example). If you think the changes are too big (maybe it ends up with 80% of the file being inside #ifdefs), but there is still some common code, it might be appropriate to move all the non-common things out of drv_initscripts.c into drv_fedora-rhel.c, then have suse's build include both drv_initscripts.c and drv_suse.c (likewise for fedora-rhel). (For that matter, at that point, maybe drv_initscripts.c could be renamed to dutil_initscripts.c (as long as there are no toplevel drv_*() functions), and it could maybe get some of the functions from dutil_linux.c that are really only applicable to initscripts-based systems.) For the xsl files, I'm not really competent to render an opinion there. I would say, though, that if it's possible to avoid duplicating identical parts of those files (by some sort of conditionalizing in a single file, or maybe splitting each file into a "common between all initscripts platforms" and "specific to platform a", that would be preferable. Otherwise, having separate files and copying them into "initscripts-(get|put).xsl" during the build would be fine. (If you do that, part of your patch should maybe be to move the current versions of those files into "initscripts-fedora-rhel-(get|put).xsl", and add the same build step to that port.) There really are no hard/fast rules, though, as there is not yet any precedent.