-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow mapping cloud-init syntax to custom stages #109
Comments
Ah I see, like the pure cloud-init syntax. I dont know to be honest, If you write cloud-init syntax you kind of expect to be used like the original cloud-init does no? Just at boot/initramfs and thats it. Once you get into the need for stages, then its much nicer to use yip syntax directly so you control all the stages and such... IMHO, cloud-init syntax is onyl there to make a nice bridge when you come into yip and have an ease of entry into writing yip stages, but its not really useful, when you can do the whole thing much better with more fine grained control under yip. Is there an use case for that? Not that Im against it, just trying to understand how this would fit yip properly :) |
Indeed you have great points
Not really, is that I'd like to think how could we manage yip to actually turn it into a some sort drop-in replacement without having to code and compromise the integration within yip itself. Also to showcase the flexibility and potential of yip.
Yes me too, I don't see it clear that's why I asked for feedback as I was not sure too. I also see your points and I think I have now way better understanding of the use case I'd like to cover, but I still doubt, on how this could be implemented. I agree with you the mapped stages for cloud-init within the cloud-init file itself sucks, this is a bad approach. This should not be in the hands of the cloud-init file writer. This should be in the hands of the system integrator (whoever set a system to honor certain yip stages). So I think we should distinguish this two users:
One thing I love from yip is the fact that in simply collects actions in to stages, what those stages mean and how and when they are executed is not yip's business. I think this is really good as it provides a lot of flexibility to anyone wanting to integrate yip into a system (1st type of users). It is in that context that I dislike the idea of grouping cloud-init actions into potentially unrelated stages. From an integrator point of view quite some flexibility is lost in that context, the integrator is no longer in control of the stages. One idea that comes to my mind is simply mapping each cloud-init item to a cloud-init devoted stage, imagine something like mapping |
This is a feature I have been wondering about for a while. Would be nice having some sort of mechanism to allow mapping cloud-init syntax to specific stages instead of being stuck to
boot
andinitramfs
.One option would be adding an extra field like
yip_stage
or something similar, we could eventually write something like:The limitation of this is that it would not be possible to set multiple stages in a single file.
Other more sophisticated (and probably a bit convoluted) approach could be providing a map directly:
I was curious to know what you think about these approaches @mudler @Itxaka
Probably there are better options I did not think about
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: