Re: Trying ARK feedback

> Yep.  Welcome to XML :-(

I am not suggesting we lose XML.  (We should keep XML.)

I'm simply suggesting that we find a way to bootstrap the .xml files using
something simpler.

If this works "well", we can easily validate the results by  generating one
form from the other.

I'm also not suggesting we make EVERYTHING convertible to/from xml.  I'm
suggesting we start with certain core .xml files and add to the list as
needed.

Here's an initial short list:

- host-related teams
- automount/disk stuff

I'm trying to solve the bootstrap problem...

> > For example, I don't see an obvious "roadmap" that tells
> > me what I need to do to get up and running.
> 
> OK, I hope the docs are now a little better on this (with
> more to do).  But the real issue is: ARK is a framework, not
> a tool.  "Up and running" -- as *what*?  ARK as a package
> manager?  As a PIKT front-end?  As an RPM front-end?  As
> something to do a little user-management?  We'll work with
> you (and anyone else) on any of those, or anything else
> that's cool that you want to try.  (Chip-design, anyone?)

I want to be able to:

- fetch the ARK bootstrap
- simply/easily define my hosts/teams and disk layout
- on a shared disk partition, make a simple incantation and
  have the stuff "covered" by ark/sidai/glasli/whatever get installed

- later, I do another simple incantation and watch things get auto-
  updated (kind of like xemacs packages)

> > I see webpage/*.txt stuff that isn't really .txt files.
> 
> Yes, this is a bug.  They were .txt files when I started :-)
> Now they're HTML files that need a shell put 'round them.  I
> will happily change them to another suffix if someone
> suggests a good one.  Note: I expect the web stuff's gonna
> change a lot anyway...

Something like foo.in and process it like autoconf's config.status does?

> > ... I found an email message from Will that is starting to
> > walk me thru the steps to get this enabled in a production
> > environment and I'm still slogging thru it.  I haven't
> > found "better" instructions, ...
> 
> Is this something I failed to fold into the documentation?
> If so, could you forward a copy?

I think I saw this in the docs you just checked in.

> > And if we can come up with a clean/simple way to specify
> > the XML info, we should use it.  Ideally, we should be
> > able to generate this file from the XML info, and then
> > "prove" the info by regenerating the XML info and
> > comparing it to the originals.
> 
> Hey, I'm doubtful -- it's inventing a new configuration
> language (or several) -- but I'm not standing in anyone's
> way :-)

First, as an example, can you/somebody convert the team/host hierarachy for
the published glasli hosts to a tab-indented structure along the lines of my
original message?

Thanks again...

H