New version of mock working (I think)

[Andreas Thienemann]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Mike McLean wrote:

> I'd almost rather handle this with a standard format state file (say 
> xml) and file locking.

+1

Communication between plague-builder and mock is local. They are both 
running on the same machine.
Using XMLRPC sounds to me as if some people here are suffering from "If 
all I have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"-syndrome.
It happened to me as well. ;D

An added benefit of just keeping state in a simple textfile is the ability 
to easily parse this with a shellscript.

I've used mock in the past to just rebuild a bunch of rpms and used the 
state file to keep track.

Having to suddenly add xmlrpc processing or even xml just processing to 
the shellscripts is a nuisance.

Furthermore, who is going to parse these state files? Right now, it's just 
plague, as brew is designed differently. Do we really need a extendable 
meta format for exchanging data?
IMHO, a simple textfile with a simple string would suffice for most uses.

If you want special status queries, why not just create a pipe which 
another tool can fopen() and fwrite() "status" and fget() "Building 
foo.src.rpm".
We do not have a large bunch of different states, we don't really have to 
encapsulate these in some meta-format.

regards,
 andreas