Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

[Demi Marie Obenour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the
same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have
the same code to shut down a VM.  Is this intentional, or should it
be replaced with common code?
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

[Alyssa Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 926 bytes --]

Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:

> I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the
> same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have
> the same code to shut down a VM.  Is this intentional, or should it
> be replaced with common code?

Yes, it probably should.  But it is sort of intentional — sometimes I'm
not sure exactly which parts should be shared, so I leave code
duplicated for a while with the idea that it'll become more clear what
the common core should be over time.  (It usually works out.)  Without a
good understanding, it's easy to deduplicate too much, and end up with
something that isn't flexible enough down the line, and then it has to
be un-deduplicated again.  Happy for you to try deduplicating it if you
think you have a good idea of where to draw that line, but otherwise
it's also fine for it to stay duplicated for now.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

[Demi Marie Obenour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

On 7/10/26 09:43, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the
>> same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have
>> the same code to shut down a VM.  Is this intentional, or should it
>> be replaced with common code?
> 
> Yes, it probably should.  But it is sort of intentional — sometimes I'm
> not sure exactly which parts should be shared, so I leave code
> duplicated for a while with the idea that it'll become more clear what
> the common core should be over time.  (It usually works out.)  Without a
> good understanding, it's easy to deduplicate too much, and end up with
> something that isn't flexible enough down the line, and then it has to
> be un-deduplicated again.  Happy for you to try deduplicating it if you
> think you have a good idea of where to draw that line, but otherwise
> it's also fine for it to stay duplicated for now.

The code that creates temporary files and per-VM users is the same for
vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak.  The code that tears down
instances and namespaces is the same for run-appimage and run-flatpak.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

[Alyssa Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1489 bytes --]

Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/10/26 09:43, Alyssa Ross wrote:
>> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the
>>> same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have
>>> the same code to shut down a VM.  Is this intentional, or should it
>>> be replaced with common code?
>> 
>> Yes, it probably should.  But it is sort of intentional — sometimes I'm
>> not sure exactly which parts should be shared, so I leave code
>> duplicated for a while with the idea that it'll become more clear what
>> the common core should be over time.  (It usually works out.)  Without a
>> good understanding, it's easy to deduplicate too much, and end up with
>> something that isn't flexible enough down the line, and then it has to
>> be un-deduplicated again.  Happy for you to try deduplicating it if you
>> think you have a good idea of where to draw that line, but otherwise
>> it's also fine for it to stay duplicated for now.
>
> The code that creates temporary files and per-VM users is the same for
> vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak.  The code that tears down
> instances and namespaces is the same for run-appimage and run-flatpak.

Right, but my point is that doesn't *ncessarily* mean that those
individual things would make sense as their own reusable components.
It might do, but it's not inferrable just from the duplication.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Duplicated VM start and shutdown code

[Demi Marie Obenour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1735 bytes --]

On 7/13/26 05:02, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 7/10/26 09:43, Alyssa Ross wrote:
>>> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the
>>>> same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have
>>>> the same code to shut down a VM.  Is this intentional, or should it
>>>> be replaced with common code?
>>>
>>> Yes, it probably should.  But it is sort of intentional — sometimes I'm
>>> not sure exactly which parts should be shared, so I leave code
>>> duplicated for a while with the idea that it'll become more clear what
>>> the common core should be over time.  (It usually works out.)  Without a
>>> good understanding, it's easy to deduplicate too much, and end up with
>>> something that isn't flexible enough down the line, and then it has to
>>> be un-deduplicated again.  Happy for you to try deduplicating it if you
>>> think you have a good idea of where to draw that line, but otherwise
>>> it's also fine for it to stay duplicated for now.
>>
>> The code that creates temporary files and per-VM users is the same for
>> vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak.  The code that tears down
>> instances and namespaces is the same for run-appimage and run-flatpak.
> 
> Right, but my point is that doesn't *ncessarily* mean that those
> individual things would make sense as their own reusable components.
> It might do, but it's not inferrable just from the duplication.

The big advantage of deduplication is that it makes modification
much easier, as I found out when adding cgroup support.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]