Dave Miner wrote: > 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 I just filed 6794 for the unique output image name RFE.
Thanks, --Karen
