Hi -
nathans wrote:
> [...]
> > Would you considering pushing a random snapshot of dev into fedora
> > rawhide, so people can experiment with it easier? (We do this with
> > systemtap, semiautomagically pushing updates weekly.)
>
> Maybe - I'm away all of next week so I'm a bit hesitant to push any
> possibly-half-baked stuff beyond the git tree dev branch. Further
> testing this arvo has uncovered some other subtle problems too.
OTOH, the point of fedora *rawhide* is to help find other subtle
problems in pre-release software.
> ./Makepkgs makes this kind of full-package-install experimentation a
> trivial matter of course, if one were so inclined. ;)
Sure. The point would be to make it even easier.
> [...]
> So, we are talking about "should we use pmlogconf or cat-a-series-of-all-
> possible-configuration-files, with no knowledge of the remote host setup,
> and let pmlogger sort it out when it starts up" to manage our farm of
> pmlogger instances [...]
Not necessarily. pmlogconf could still be run for each newly discovered
remote host; its output file could be in a separate per-host config file.
By the way, another (non-pmcpp, non-directory-searching) simple way to
mix hand-written and generated files would be to permit pmlogger to
have not just one -c CONFIG file option, but multiple.
- FChE
|