From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IS9pM-0003y8-Vf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:10:44 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IS9pM-0003x5-1z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:10:44 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IS9pL-0003wy-R9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:10:43 -0400 Received: from owl.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.68.129]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IS9pL-0000BS-DI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:10:43 -0400 Received: from goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk (goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.131]) by owl.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l83BAa1A007516 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:10:36 +0100 Received: from [152.78.64.252] (panther [152.78.64.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l83B9fJL024676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:09:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Allowing QEMU to directly execute a directory (and storing command line options in it) From: Philip Boulain In-Reply-To: References: <59abf66e0708311119p2b83fcffg31fac1c298cfc10a@mail.gmail.com> <1188586457.8543.2.camel@squirrel> <7CB48D77-249D-4DD9-83B8-D3DB8553C058@jump-ing.de> <59abf66e0709011145o20aae4fft5169bfb80e529bb2@mail.gmail.com> <94105503-7C72-4E25-A34D-B93415278EFB@web.de> <59abf66e0709011326l75297ef8h2d92fe728809452c@mail.gmail.com> <29521E1A-285E-419F-8CF5-079D196B9C0F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:10:20 +0100 Message-Id: <1188817820.15382.9.camel@panther> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 12:01 +0200, Christian Brunschen wrote: > On 3 Sep 2007, at 11:19, Philip Boulain wrote: > > What's the difference between having to hack about a plain-text, > > few-lines configuration file, and a plain-text, few-lines shell > > script? > The same shells are not (at least by default) available on all > platforms. You only need sh, because all you're doing is an exec, which covers all POSIX platforms. For Windows, use a shortcut. > Basically, requiring a shell script means that you have to meta- > program around qemu itself, whereas a configuration file means you're > writing something within the context of qemu (and thus don't have to > venture outside qemu's domain). Given that the goal is "simple", I'd consider this a plus. 95% of UNIX-like systems is glue.[1] > 2) if 'foo' is a directory: > verify that 'foo' is in fact a vm bundle directory... If this is going to move from frontends to QEMU itself, given that the Q devs have already created a QEMU VM bundle format, it makes sense to use theirs. It's a sensible format, consistent at least with OS X bundle conventions. (Not sure about GNUStep bundles, but given that their both NeXT offspring, I doubt there's much difference.) > Saying that 'Q already handles this' means that any other program > that wants to offer a similar ease-of-use would have to be able to > read and interpret Q's configuration file format. I don't see a problem with this. > If instead there is > a wrapper-neutral format, then each wrapper can use that. This is what Q bundles should be absorbed as. For "simple", there are shell scripts. For "complete", there are bundles, and Q's format is a good one to absorb as "the QEMU bundle format". I don't see the point in a config format which adds nothing but complexity over a shell script. LionsPhil 1. This figure drawn from entirely unauthoritative sources. ;)