List plugins installed?

[Marco Ceppi]

Thanks have some ideas about this, I'll file a bug (blueprint?) about it. I
really care about plugins and would like to make them more robust in Juju.

Marco

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 6:07 PM Tim Penhey <tim.penhey at canonical.com> wrote:

> If we do that, then we can make the plug-in also install a metadata file
> that explains help and usage, so you don't call the script to do that.
>
> It makes it easy to list plug-ins, because you are searching a known
> location, and not the entire path. Only show plug-ins that have the
> appropriate meta-data file.
>
> Tim
>
> On 30/09/16 10:47, Nate Finch wrote:
> > Seem alike the easiest thing to do is have a designated plugin directory
> > and have juju install <path/to/plugin> copy the binary/script there.
> > Then we're only running plugins the user has specifically asked to
> install.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 4:33 AM Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com
> > <mailto:stuart.bishop at canonical.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 28 September 2016 at 22:45, roger peppe
> >     <roger.peppe at canonical.com <mailto:roger.peppe at canonical.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >         On 28 September 2016 at 14:55, Rick Harding
> >         <rick.harding at canonical.com <mailto:rick.harding at canonical.com>>
> >         wrote:
> >         > This is just a miss. The original ability to see the plugins
> was a subset of
> >         > the help command and didn't make our CLI spreadsheet for
> things to rework. I
> >         > agree that list-plugins is the right idea here and that means
> that plugins
> >         > becomes a noun in our language.
> >         >
> >         > What's interesting is that add/remove fall out because that
> >         > installing/uninstalling. I think that show-plugin might be
> interesting to
> >         > auto run the --description flag to bring it into CLI alignment
> with the new
> >         > world order.
> >
> >         I've voiced discomfort with this before - I don't think that we
> >         should
> >         arbitrarily run all executables that happen to have a "juju-"
> >         prefix.
> >         It's potentially dangerous (for example, note that although git
> >         relies heavily
> >         on plugins, it doesn't execute a plugin until you explicitly
> >         name it).
> >
> >         Perhaps there could be a standard way for a plugin to provide
> >         metadata about itself as a data file.
> >
> >
> >     It also might be time to work out how a Juju snap is going to call
> >     or install plugins. I don't think the existing design is going to
> >     work, and there is still time to flag it as deprecated in the
> >     changelogs for 2.0 and work out the way forward for 2.1.
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com
> >     <mailto:stuart.bishop at canonical.com>>
> >     --
> >     Juju-dev mailing list
> >     Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com>
> >     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20160929/8147cbe7/attachment.html>