On Tue, 22.01.13 16:15, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote: > > I was writing up a bunch of arguments in favor of DOT (now deleted > after reviewing the existing "analyze" output and how DOT would not be > good for achieving it). But, I'd really prefer moving the output to > something more semantic like callgrind [1] or HAR [2]. DOT is > certainly more semantic than SVG, but it's nowhere near callgrind and > HAR.
While we generally try to avoid supporting too many different formats and protocols in systemd, and only support those we really know we can support for good and make work well, and where we know they have a strong future I think "systemd-analyze" being primarily an analysis tool and not being part of the usual system management code paths would benefit from different output formats, even if those might be slightly more exotic. I have no experience with HAR and it's not obvious how this applies to systemd-analyze, but if it has nice tools that can process it I am all for it. BTW, "systemctl dot" can generate dot files, but it's not as useful as one might hope, since the networks are just too massive. (Thinking about it, if we now have systemd-analyze in C we really should move systemctl's dot command there too.) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
