Karen Tung wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: >> >>>> >>> IMO, generating of the hashes should be part of the same finalizer >>> script >>> that generates the associated images, that way, there's no ambiguity >>> about >>> which image the hashes are being generated for. If we were to generate >>> the hashes in a separate finalizer script, one will have to check >>> whether the >>> given image exist or not, and the name also need to be pass in. >>> It can work, but I think it is not as clean of a solution. >>> >> >> I don't see where there's potential ambiguity, or why names need to be >> passed in. My understanding of the architecture was that we >> maintained the manifest as a document in the ManifestServ that could >> be queried by each task for the data it needs. This information is >> seemingly available there. >> >> Dave > At this time, the create_iso and create_usb script "computes" the image > file names by querying ManifestServ > for the "distribution name" value, and use the distribution name as the > filename. > > Having a separate finalizer script for the hashes require that finalizer > script to know how the image filename > is computed. For example, I sometimes don't like to use the > distribution name as the image filename, because > multiple runs of DC will overwrite an image that that I want to keep > from a previous run. So, I added the pid to the image > filename to solve my problem. With finalizer scripts, that means one > have to remember to change all > the different places where this name is computed. Alternatively, we can > define a function that computes the > name which all the finalizer scripts can call. >
I think you arrived at the right answer there. Would be nice to add timestamp or series generation for the name as an RFE if we don't have that already filed, too. Dave
