Skip to content

Conversation

@markafarrell
Copy link
Contributor

Optionally load providers from /etc/opk/providers.d

Fixes #107

@markafarrell markafarrell marked this pull request as draft April 4, 2025 04:48
@markafarrell markafarrell force-pushed the feature/etc-okp-providers.d branch from 1a01dc8 to 794241e Compare April 4, 2025 05:20
@markafarrell markafarrell marked this pull request as ready for review April 4, 2025 05:22
@Foxboron
Copy link

Foxboron commented Apr 4, 2025

I don't want to complicate this further, but could we support a proper hierarchy of files? The UAPI group, a collection of linux distro, has a "Configuration Files Specification" that allows a hierarchy of files in which we could provide system defaults and overrides.

I suspect it would be nice to implement this with /etc/opk/providers.d now or later.

https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/configuration_files_specification/

@EthanHeilman
Copy link
Member

EthanHeilman commented Apr 4, 2025

I suspect it would be nice to implement this with /etc/opk/providers.d now or later.

For the sake of not having to worry about upgrades, we should do this now. A good chunk of the code is the upcoming release will be around configuration files. This is exactly the right moment to get our ducks in a row. Can you open a PR or issue that proposes what changes we need to make?

@markafarrell
Copy link
Contributor Author

@EthanHeilman Did we want to try to support the current format and a new yaml based format? Or are we happy to just throw away the current format and only support a new yaml based format for provider configuration for future releases?

@markafarrell
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Foxboron @EthanHeilman I have created a new issue #115 to discuss the possible format for provider configuration

@markafarrell markafarrell force-pushed the feature/etc-okp-providers.d branch from 794241e to 9338833 Compare April 5, 2025 05:02
@markafarrell markafarrell force-pushed the feature/etc-okp-providers.d branch from cc65b52 to 993c204 Compare April 7, 2025 03:35
@EthanHeilman
Copy link
Member

Did we want to try to support the current format and a new yaml based format? Or are we happy to just throw away the current format and only support a new yaml based format for provider configuration for future releases?

I'm still thinking about the yaml format.

I don't think we can throw away the current format.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RFE: Allow reading providers from multiple files

3 participants