On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:39:31AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:39:05PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Extract and somewhat generalize the recipe for the $(PHYSICAL_MACHINE) > > target to a separate shell script. In preparation for the multiple steps > > we're going to introduce later, redirect virt-builder to a temp file at > > first (placed in the same directory as the finally expected disk image), > > and rename that file upon success. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > > --- > > > +++ b/make-physical-machine.sh > > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > > +#!/bin/bash - > > See the response in the other thread about not needing the - here. > Are we sure that /bin/bash is on all systems where this script will be > run, or is it better as '#!/bin/env bash'?
Realisticly virt-p2v only makes sense on Linux, both when used to prepare the P2V ISO, as well as the environment in which the ISO boots. eg: Using virt-p2v on (say) FreeBSD to prepare a Linux ISO? The FreeBSD folk would prefer that the built ISO contained FreeBSD, but that would require a small mountain of work. > > + > > +set -e -u -C > > My personal opinion is that 'set -e' is a crutch that should be > avoided because of its unintended interaction with functions; but I'm > not adamant enough about it to tell people to rip it out of scripts. > For short scripts, like this one, it's easy enough to check that we > aren't tripping over any of -e's surprises. I'm confused too: what's the problem with set -e? Compared to _not_ having set -e which allows scripts to continue running after errors. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com nbdkit - Flexible, fast NBD server with plugins https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list Libguestfs@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
