Re: [Libguestfs] [Bug 1046905] New: RFE: add argument to virt-sysprep to disable individual default operations

On Tuesday 07 January 2014 12:12:43 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:16:08AM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > > On Friday 27 December 2013 10:58:15 you wrote: > > > virt-sysprep either runs with all default operations or a > > > selected > > > list of operations with the --enable argument. A few times I've > > > found I'd like to use the default list, but minus one or two > > > operations in particular, however there's no easy way to specify > > > this. > > > > > > A --disable argument that took the default operation list and > > > skipped > > > selected operations would be useful. > > > > A rough idea I had about this is adding a new --operations > > parameter, > > which would take a a comma-separated list of operations (just like > > the current --enable), but with the following differences: > > - a leading minus would disable the specified operation > > - it would recognize the meta-keywords "all" (for all the > > available > > > > operations) and "defaults" (for the ones enabled by default) > > > > Processing the list of operations would add/remove them from the > > current set of operations, bailing out whether the resulting set > > is > > empty (just like right now --enable rejects an empty string). > > > > This way, you could write e.g.: > > - --operations defaults,-hostname,user-account > > > > runs the default ones but not "hostname", and the non-default > > "user-account" > > > > - --operations all > > > > easy shortcut to run all the available operations > > > > and so on. > > > > --enable could just be an alias for --operations, or this new > > syntax > > could be added directly to --enable directly. > > > > Maybe I'm over-engineering, but IMHO seems a better way than > > potentially adding a --disable argument and deal with the order of > > --enable & --disable and their interactions. > > Seems reasonable.