Re: python-btrfs v10 preview... detailed usage reporting and a tutorial

[Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:03:44AM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> And yes, when promoting things like the new show_usage example to
> programs that are easily available, users will probably start parsing
> the output of them with sed and awk which is a total abomination and the
> absolute opposite of the purpose of the library. So be it. Let it go. :D
> "The code never bothered me any way".

It's not like some deranged person would parse the output of, say, show_file
in Perl...
 
> The interesting question that remains is where the result should go.
> 
> btrfs-heatmap is a thing of its own now, but it's a bit of the "show
> case" example using the lib, with its own collection of documentation
> and even possibility to script it again.
> 
> Shipping the 'binaries' in the python3-btrfs package wouldn't be the
> right thing, so where should they go? apt-get install btrfs-moar-utils-yolo?

At least in Debian, moving executables between packages is a matter of
versioned Replaces (+Conflicts: old), so if any point you decide differently
it's not a problem.  So btrfs-moar-utils-yolo should work well.

> Or should btrfs-progs start to use this to accelerate improvement for
> providing a richer collection of useful progs for things that are not on
> essential level (like, you won't need them inside initramfs, so they can
> use python)?

You might want your own package that's agile and btrfs-progs for things
declared to be rock stable (WRT command-line API, not neccesarily stability
of code).

Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 10 people enter a bar: 1 who understands binary,
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 1 who doesn't, D who prefer to write it as hex,
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ and 1 who narrowly avoided an off-by-one error.