Default config file contents

[Michael E Brown]

Discussion topic:

With the recent changes to mock, several default config file options
have changed. I am of the opinion that we should provide a config file
with only the basic things that the user would like to change, and leave
the defaults in mock.py (with an option to dump the config). For
example, I believe we should take out the mount, unmount, rm, chroot,
etc from our default configs, as it is highly unlikely that average
users would change these.

The reason for this proposed change is to make it easier to migrate from
one version to the next. As it is, mock 0.7 will not be able to use
%config(noreplace) on the config files, because too many things changed.
The user will have to manually merge any site-specific changes.

The final config file, I believe, should only contain the yum config
relating to repository locations, which the user is likely to want to
mirror for speed reasons.

Comments?
--
Michael

[Clark Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[e-mail] wrote:
> Default config file contents
>
> Discussion topic:
>
> With the recent changes to mock, several default config file options
> have changed. I am of the opinion that we should provide a config
> file with only the basic things that the user would like to change,
> and leave the defaults in mock.py (with an option to dump the
> config). For example, I believe we should take out the mount,
> unmount, rm, chroot, etc from our default configs, as it is highly
> unlikely that average users would change these.
>
> The reason for this proposed change is to make it easier to migrate
> from one version to the next. As it is, mock 0.7 will not be able to
> use %config(noreplace) on the config files, because too many things
> changed. The user will have to manually merge any site-specific
> changes.
>
> The final config file, I believe, should only contain the yum config
> relating to repository locations, which the user is likely to want
> to mirror for speed reasons.
>
> Comments?

I agree. Sounds like we'll end up with a file that only contains
options that modify behavior, as opposed to basic utilities.  Possibly
the following:

config_opts['basedir'] = '/var/lib/mock/'
config_opts['chrootuser'] = 'mockbuild'
config_opts['chrootgroup'] = 'mockbuild'
config_opts['chroothome'] = '/builddir'
config_opts['clean'] = True

# caching related options
config_opts['rebuild_cache'] = True
config_opts['use_cache'] = True
config_opts['cache_topdir'] = "root-cache"
config_opts['max_cache_age_days'] = 15

My only addition would be to say that I'd really like a better name
than "defaults.cfg", which is one letter removed from the symlink
default.cfg, which is the default configuration file. I don't really
have a preference, just something not so easily confused.

Maybe "configuration.cfg" or something like that?

Clark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEoF3VHyuj/+TTEp0RAqMOAJ95OimI96dn9n2CCGIvBjfSab2tRwCgmsB3
> pWCZFFCsumEx8Mjim1fG3Zg=
> =6ygx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 17:21 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> Maybe "configuration.cfg" or something like that?

+1 to a more simple config file.  The easier the better, and the less to
worry about when upgrading.

As far as a name, mock-config.cfg ?  setup.cfg ?  I agree it is to close
to 'default.cfg'.