[Swan-dev] should final.sh shut down pluto?
Andrew Cagney
andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 16:42:03 UTC 2016
On 24 June 2016 at 11:43, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:
> additional run scripts would be nice to have.
More than just nice. For instance:
- west brings up a connection
- east triggers a child-sa
> Some minor comments about script naming.
> I think it would be nicer if the name was <nn>-<host>run.sh
> the current scripts are <host>(init|run).sh (eastinit.sh). Having eastining.sh and run1east.sh could be confusing.
>
> Also if we do this ideally rename the current (west|road|north)run.sh to 01-westrun.sh
Yes, I think the existing scripts can be renamed safely. Their names
do not appear in the output, and that would work.
My reason for putting run* first was to accommodate:
init.sh -- optional, run across all domains; probably just runs swan-prep
runNN<domain>.sh
teardown.sh -- replace final.sh, optional run across all domains
however, current separation into *init*.sh and *run*.sh is very artificial:
- init scripts do stuff that arguably belongs in run
- the init script order is always: nic, east, west so might as well
spell that out
so just <nn>-<domain>.sh or <nn><domain>.sh is sufficient.
> I wonder if it is better to add sequnce number as prefix or in the middle.
> There are already ideas about having multiple hosts named road1 road2,..
> Where there more hosts, say road1 there will be
> 01-road1run.sh or wonder is it better clearly seperate host name. 01-road1-run.sh
More information about the Swan-dev
mailing list