New version of mock working (I think)
Andreas Thienemann
andreas at bawue.net
Tue Jun 27 00:22:32 UTC 2006
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Mike McLean wrote:
> I'd almost rather handle this with a standard format state file (say
> xml) and file locking.
+1
Communication between plague-builder and mock is local. They are both
running on the same machine.
Using XMLRPC sounds to me as if some people here are suffering from "If
all I have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"-syndrome.
It happened to me as well. ;D
An added benefit of just keeping state in a simple textfile is the ability
to easily parse this with a shellscript.
I've used mock in the past to just rebuild a bunch of rpms and used the
state file to keep track.
Having to suddenly add xmlrpc processing or even xml just processing to
the shellscripts is a nuisance.
Furthermore, who is going to parse these state files? Right now, it's just
plague, as brew is designed differently. Do we really need a extendable
meta format for exchanging data?
IMHO, a simple textfile with a simple string would suffice for most uses.
If you want special status queries, why not just create a pipe which
another tool can fopen() and fwrite() "status" and fget() "Building
foo.src.rpm".
We do not have a large bunch of different states, we don't really have to
encapsulate these in some meta-format.
regards,
andreas
More information about the Fedora-buildsys-list
mailing list