launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/03/12 13:20, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12-02-03 11:30 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> > This sounds quite a lot like the scripts test farm uses to
> > configure a Launchpad instance.  Have you had a look at it?
> >
> > bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~abentley/+junk/test-farm/
> >
> > > ...and a bit like utilities/setuplxc and a bit like
> > > utilities/rocketfuel-setup and friends.  And like ec2, as
> > > already mentioned.
>
> Is there significant code-duplication between setuplxc and
> rocketfuel-setup?  I've always just used rocketfuel-setup
> - --no-workspace and then implemented the workspace myself.  I guess
> that might not work for setuplxc.
>
> (stupid-simple install-launchpad script attached.)

The primary use case for us with setuplxc is having it set up an 
environment for a buildbot slave without any interaction (we use it 
within a juju charm).  That has different behaviors than normal 
rocketfuel-setup.  Francesco modified it to also be able to set 
everything up for a developer with lxc, though that might have 
bit-rotted a bit already (we have tests for individual helpers but not a 
smoke test for the whole thing; I proposed a test plan but what I came 
up with was too expensive).

> > > We were considering collapsing setuplxc and rocketfuel-setup at
> > > least (not that everyone would have to use lxc, but the
> > > duplicated bits between the two could be maintained together).  I
> > > suspect that these two are more like Ian's current scripts than
> > > ec2, at least.
>
> That makes plenty of sense.  Maybe turn it into a real python script
> with different invocations for different use cases?

Yes, setuplxc is Python.  So, yeah, my thought was to continue with the 
setuplxc direction.  Rename it to "setup" (or "rocketfuel-setup"), and 
have it handle all three cases, eliminating the current rocketfuel-setup.

> > > ...ec2 seems more like what I'd like canonistack setup to reuse,
> > > though, myself.  That's remote setup, while setuplxc and
> > > rocketfuel-setup are about local setup.  ec2, or maybe what Aaron
> > > describes below.
>
> Aside from actually spinning up instances, I'd hope that the way you
> set up a remote instance is very close to the way you set up a local one.

I can see where you are coming from.  ec2 does control things from a 
distance, which was a design choice I made early on.  Maybe we could 
redo ec2 to take advantage of the newer cloud tools we have, and switch 
to the model you suggest, thereby further reducing the duplication.

Gary

> Aaron
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8sJV8ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI3fOACfdHtpvL9GIL8VlTzwjaKqO2vm
> szQAnjJzuU3lupOfv22tff/pL2xk9Ulj
> =9XgJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
> Post to     : launchpad-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp