On 07/28/2010 01:33 PM, Ian Main wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 13:23 -0400, Mohammed Morsi wrote: > >> On 07/28/2010 10:00 AM, Hugh Brock wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:04:05PM -0400, Mohammed Morsi wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 07/26/2010 03:11 PM, Jason Guiditta wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> This should probably match the spec if we keep this around for a bit >>>>> (but really, the whole file should just be removed, as we dont use >>>>> test:unit anymore). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have no problem with removing the test suite all together as, like you >>>> said, it's deprecated in favor of the spec and feature suites. If we are >>>> going to keep it around though, it should be kept in a working state. >>>> >>>> Besides removing the test suite, I would like to make the following >>>> 'major-ish' changes to the aggregator: >>>> >>>> - replace the autotools based build system with Rake >>>> - getting rid of the src/ subdir, merging everything in it into the >>>> project root >>>> - making sure build the aggregator rpm still works after the previous >>>> changes >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any objections before I throw something together to do >>>> these? >>>> >>>> -Mo >>>> >>>> >>> Heh well as you may remember I yelled at you the last time you wanted >>> to do this... but I am in a more forgiving mood this time. Why would >>> we want to do either of these things though? >>> >>> >> This is why I'm asking before hand instead of just doing it / sending >> out patches ;-) >> >> >>> NB I'm bowing out of this discussion now, Scott it's up to you what we >>> do here. >>> >>> --Hugh >>> >>> >> The reason I believe replacing autotools with Rake is the correct way >> togo is that the aggregator is a 100% Ruby based project and Rake is the >> standard Ruby build system. >> >> I don't know of any other pure Ruby project today that uses autotools >> for the build system, and since we already have Rake inplace and are >> splitting tasks between Rake and autotools I believe it'd just be far >> more simpler and easier for new developers to pick up if we just went >> with a Rake based solution (as deltacloud core is doing). Plus Rake has >> many builtin capabilities that makes building and packaging Ruby >> projects alot easier than to do so with autotools. >> >> As far as removing the src/ subdir, it's just additional complexity, a >> relic from ovirt, and nothing more. So I guess the question is what is >> the justification for the additional complexity? If there is none, we >> should remove it all together, merging the main project layout into the >> project root. >> >> AFAIK after these changes, we just need to make sure that the rpms are >> generated correctly, and the application itself and spec/feature suites >> work correctly. I can do all of the previous, I just need the ok (don't >> want to get yelled at again :-/ ) >> >> -Mo >> > And as you write this I am working on a C based plugin to classads in > condor that will have to reach into the aggregator for quota > information.. I think I may have to embed a ruby interpreter to get an > AR interface though (I think.. some things are still in planning > stages). > > This could be packaged separately but is very much tied to the > aggregator so it may make the most sense to just leave it in there. > > Ian > > > You can easily build / compile C/C++ code using Rake, so it should also work for that use case without the need for two separate build systems.
Regardless even if we don't replace autotools, IMO we should still get rid of the src/ subdir. -Mo _______________________________________________ deltacloud-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/deltacloud-devel
