Linaro Image Tools

Code review comment for lp://staging/~mabac/linaro-image-tools/scripts-hooks

scripts-hooks
Merge into trunk

Revision history for this message

Fathi Boudra (fboudra) wrote on 2012-01-25:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Mattias Backman
> <email address hidden> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Do we need the extra command line options? I'm thinking about a hook dir
> where
> >
> > It's all down to how you'd like this to behave, we can do that instead. I
> think the discussions on irc kept mentioning command line options which is why
> I did that. Any other opinions about cli options vs a hook dir?
>
> While I like the pbuilder/livebuild way of hooking the script, I think
> having them as a parameter (for pre/post) is more than enough, besides
> easier to implement. If the user really want to customize the image
> this much, I'd prefer him to go and create his own image by running
> live-build by hand.

I see at least one argument to prefer linaro-media-create instead of live-build for the job: it will work on other distributions. afaik, live-build isn't available on something else than Debian/Ubuntu, more over we carry a modified version available in our PPA.

> >> > 2. Would be useful if we could also copy both scripts at the rootfs
> >> > 3. Would also be useful if we could stamp that the image was customized
> by a
> >> script
> >>
> >> for both, I'll leave these outside of l-m-c. It's up to the developer and
> >> could be done through the hooks.
> >
> > I think it can be settled by sorting out if this always will be needed or if
> there may be cases where the hook author would want no trace of the hooks on
> the target system. If we feel that we need this for helping people with messed
> up images we need to do it in l-m-c. If it's up to the developer, I'm happy to
> leave this bit out.

As a hook author, I don't want trace of the hooks as I want to keep it small :)

> Do we have the logs from the l-m-c available at the image already?
> Guess that this would be enough already.

Do you mean a build log shipped inside the image? We don't have that.
We can add traces on l-m-c build log (though, it isn't shipped in the generated rootfs).

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Mattias Backman
> <mattias.backman@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Do we need the extra command line options? I'm thinking about a hook dir
> where
> >
> > It's all down to how you'd like this to behave, we can do that instead. I
> think the discussions on irc kept mentioning command line options which is why
> I did that. Any other opinions about cli options vs a hook dir?
> 
> While I like the pbuilder/livebuild way of hooking the script, I think
> having them as a parameter (for pre/post) is more than enough, besides
> easier to implement. If the user really want to customize the image
> this much, I'd prefer him to go and create his own image by running
> live-build by hand.

As a hook author, I don't want trace of the hooks as I want to keep it small :)

> Do we have the logs from the l-m-c available at the image already?
> Guess that this would be enough already.

Do you mean a build log shipped inside the image? We don't have that.
We can add traces on l-m-c build log (though, it isn't shipped in the generated rootfs).

« Back to merge proposal