On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:17:39AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Dear list, you might have seen a discussion about virsh, and adding some new features to it . While the feature was rejected, it got me thinking. What options do we offer for sysadmins that: a) want to stay in command line b) want higher level mgmt of their domains c) yet want to manage a single host Basically, virsh is just too low level for some operations (and using it in non-interactive mode from a script can mean hundreds of connections). Then we have virt-manager, which suits b) and c), but it's not a CLI tool. Therefore I was thinking whether we should start a new project on the top of libvirt that would fit all three points. Personally, I've never been a sysadmin, so perhaps I am not the best one to write the tool. But I'm open for suggestions. What do you think?
Given the deprecation of TUI mode of virt-manager, I'd guess it's not something that would be so beneficial. I'm not saying people don't want it, but the market is so spread out that every few people will have so different usage cases that it's more advantageous for each one of them to cook up a small tool for their usage. I think the bindings we provide are sufficient to simply create your own TUI with some easy TUI library. That's why there are things like virt-manager.el for emacs, nemu as a new ebuild in gentoo, and I believe many others that I don't remember. Some of them are definitely just for fun, but there are some that probably people wanted to use. Adding more stuff to add functionality to (considering how many places we have already) could make the code worse as many people are not cleaning up after themselves already. But if you want to do that, I'm not going to stand in your way ;) This is just my personal opinion on what you asked about.
Michal 1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-May/msg00051.html -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list redhat com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Description: Digital signature