----- Original Message -----
> ---
> Makefile | 9 ++++++-
> autoqa.spec | 7 ++++-
> client-deps-custom.conf | 2 +
> client-deps.conf | 4 +++
What are your thoughts around usage for the base and the -custom.conf?
Is this a mechanism for site administrators to define additional
dependencies they want installed on autotest clients? Is this expected
to be temporary until the autotest Packaging support you mentioned is
explored/implemented?
Do we really need two config files? Can this just be a single option
in
an existing config file? Or, do you anticipate additional
autotest-specific tunables? Perhaps autotest.conf might be
appropriate?
I have supposed that client-deps.conf would be automatically replaced
on update and would hold all autoqa dependencies we want to install
on the client. Thus it shouldn't be edited by the administrator (it won't
keep changes between updates).
On the other hand client-deps-custom.conf may contain some additional
packages the maintainer wants to have installed (I have used vim
and mc for example). This config file will be retained on autoqa
upgrade (using %config(noreplace) option in spec file).
This is just a quick patch used for debate, not really intended for
merging into master.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/client-deps.conf
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +# Auto-generated list of AutoQA dependencies, DO NOT EDIT
> +# For specifying custom packages to install on the client, edit
> client-deps-custom.conf
> +openssh-clients
> +rsync
These are autotest-server dependencies, right?
Rather autotest(-client), but correct.
> - # if this is our test, copy all config files to src_dir to be
> tarred
> - # and transferred to client
> - if autoqa_test:
> - for config in configs:
> - shutil.copy(config, src_dir)
Nice check! I wasn't sure how we'd do something like this, but you got
it :)
I don't think we can do shutil.copy() to copy config files into the
test
directories. I mean, it certainly works, but it requires funky
permissions on the autotest packaging so that the 'autotest' user can
write into the site_tests directory. Can we changed this to your
modified rsync/scp method instead?
Hey, James, this file is *removed* :-)
My patch is based on master, so basically some of the changes are
the same as in your patch (e.g. removing site_packages.py).
Once again, this patch is sent just for further reference and
inspiring new ideas. I would like to deal with it only in the
next+1 autoqa release, and currently I began to incline to your
proposal of RPM packaging approach.
For the next autoqa release, I would like to use site_autotest.py
just to transfer config files (and install rsync and scp). That's
non-controversial and we need it. The rest can wait. Patch will
follow soon.