[et-mgmt-tools] Re: Info on cft

[Thomas S Hatch]

Bindings are nice, but it is always better to get functionality then polish
later!  I will have some time to look at the code later tonight of tomorrow,
I will see what I can find.
But all in all I think that cft would be an amazing tool to have, and I
think it is worth the trouble to get going!

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM, David Lutterkort <lutter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:07 -0600, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > I am a python guy myself, but I will try to take a look.  I really
> > like what you are doing with cft and would hate to see the concept
> > die.  You don't know if there is a similar function in ralsh?
>
> No, ralsh doesn't do that; cft requires some more intimate knowledge of
> the system (e.g., it takes a snapshot of the rpm DB at the start of a
> session, and tracks file changes using fam/inotify)
>
> It just occurred to me that it might be possible to sidestep the whole
> ruby-rpm issue by shelling out to rpm - that might be an easier way to
> resurrect cft than fixing the ruby-rpm bindings.
>
> David
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/et-mgmt-tools/attachments/20090421/a4a7dd2d/attachment.htm>