cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajesh Battala <rajesh.batt...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Regarding ssvm-check script
Date Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:36:46 GMT
Nitin, 
Yes, the ssvm under console proxy should be removed. It make more sense for the script to
be coming from secondary-storage folder path. 
If you are removing the script under consoleproxy, make the change in the systemvm-description.xml
to pick the ssvm script from the secondary storage scripts. 
If you don't make that change systemvm.iso might not have the ssvm script.

Thanks
Rajesh Battala

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:09 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Regarding ssvm-check script
> 
> Hi Rajesh,
> Please find my comments inline
> 
> On 13/06/13 10:40 PM, "Rajesh Battala" <rajesh.battala@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >Hi All,
> >While fixing an issue ( https://reviews.apache.org/r/11862/ )in
> >ssvm-check script I figured out some issues.
> >
> >1.There are two ssvm_check scripts(duplicates).
> >
> >./services/console-proxy/server/scripts/ssvm-check.sh
> >./services/secondary-storage/scripts/ssvm-check.sh
> >
> >When building the code, these scripts will go to systemvm.zip,
> >systemvm.zip will be packaged into systemvm.iso.
> >
> >systemvm-descriptor.xml will define what all the scripts should package.
> >As per the descriptor xml,  the ssvm-check script under console-proxy
> >is getting into systemvm.zip.
> 
> Shouldn't it be the other way round ? I mean the ssvm script under
> secondary-storage should have come in ?
> 
> >
> >I had verified the ssvm-check script with the fix under console-proxy.
> >The systemvm.zip is getting update properly and making into systemvm.iso.
> >And ssvm is getting the right script now.
> >
> >Changes made in script under
> >./services/secondary-storage/scripts/ssvm-check.sh is not getting into
> >systemvm.iso
> >
> >I feel the script is redundant and creating confusion.
> >Can we remove the script in one location?
> 
> I would remove it from console-proxy for the sake of consistency and make
> sure the one under secondary-storage gets in. Also while doing so hopefully
> the final location (folder structure) of the script is not disturbed in the ssvm
> 
> >
> >Thanks
> >Rajesh Battala


Mime
View raw message