On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:03:44AM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > And yes, when promoting things like the new show_usage example to > programs that are easily available, users will probably start parsing > the output of them with sed and awk which is a total abomination and the > absolute opposite of the purpose of the library. So be it. Let it go. :D > "The code never bothered me any way".
It's not like some deranged person would parse the output of, say, show_file in Perl... > The interesting question that remains is where the result should go. > > btrfs-heatmap is a thing of its own now, but it's a bit of the "show > case" example using the lib, with its own collection of documentation > and even possibility to script it again. > > Shipping the 'binaries' in the python3-btrfs package wouldn't be the > right thing, so where should they go? apt-get install btrfs-moar-utils-yolo? At least in Debian, moving executables between packages is a matter of versioned Replaces (+Conflicts: old), so if any point you decide differently it's not a problem. So btrfs-moar-utils-yolo should work well. > Or should btrfs-progs start to use this to accelerate improvement for > providing a richer collection of useful progs for things that are not on > essential level (like, you won't need them inside initramfs, so they can > use python)? You might want your own package that's agile and btrfs-progs for things declared to be rock stable (WRT command-line API, not neccesarily stability of code). Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 10 people enter a bar: 1 who understands binary, ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 1 who doesn't, D who prefer to write it as hex, ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ and 1 who narrowly avoided an off-by-one error.
