Code review comment for lp:~mabac/linaro-image-tools/scripts-hooks

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ricardo Salveti <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Fathi Boudra <email address hidden> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Mattias Backman
>>> <email address hidden> wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> Do we need the extra command line options? I'm thinking about a hook dir
>>> where
>>> >
>>> > It's all down to how you'd like this to behave, we can do that instead. I
>>> think the discussions on irc kept mentioning command line options which is why
>>> I did that. Any other opinions about cli options vs a hook dir?
>>>
>>> While I like the pbuilder/livebuild way of hooking the script, I think
>>> having them as a parameter (for pre/post) is more than enough, besides
>>> easier to implement. If the user really want to customize the image
>>> this much, I'd prefer him to go and create his own image by running
>>> live-build by hand.
>>
>> I see at least one argument to prefer linaro-media-create instead of live-build for the job: it will work on other distributions. afaik, live-build isn't available on something else than Debian/Ubuntu, more over we carry a modified version available in our PPA.
>
> Yeah, having linaro-media-create working on any other distro is
> already a pain, requesting further customization with live-build is
> even worse, +1 for fathi's solution then.

So we change this to the hooks drop-in folder then.

>
>>> >> > 2. Would be useful if we could also copy both scripts at the rootfs
>>> >> > 3. Would also be useful if we could stamp that the image was customized
>>> by a
>>> >> script
>>> >>
>>> >> for both, I'll leave these outside of l-m-c. It's up to the developer and
>>> >> could be done through the hooks.
>>> >
>>> > I think it can be settled by sorting out if this always will be needed or if
>>> there may be cases where the hook author would want no trace of the hooks on
>>> the target system. If we feel that we need this for helping people with messed
>>> up images we need to do it in l-m-c. If it's up to the developer, I'm happy to
>>> leave this bit out.
>>
>> As a hook author, I don't want trace of the hooks as I want to keep it small :)
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>> Do we have the logs from the l-m-c available at the image already?
>>> Guess that this would be enough already.
>>
>> Do you mean a build log shipped inside the image? We don't have that.
>> We can add traces on l-m-c build log (though, it isn't shipped in the generated rootfs).
>
> Yeah, I believe having the build logs is useful, and could be
> available at /var/something. But guess this can be tracked by another
> bug/merge request.

We brough this up as part of the image metadata discussion. It is a
separate feature but we can probably sneak it in while doing some
other work.

>
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~mabac/linaro-image-tools/scripts-hooks/+merge/89889
> You are the owner of lp:~mabac/linaro-image-tools/scripts-hooks.