Hi,
2012/7/31 Dieter Plaetinck <[email protected]>: > there's a bunch of configuration management tools written for this use case > already. > like chef, puppet, ansible. many of these concerns are relatively easy to > abstract for multiple distributions, > so writting a new tool that only targets Arch is not a good idea imho. All of the tools you mention requires several dependencies, cover completely different use cases from what I wrote about and are needlessly complex for what I had in mind, even ansible. In addition, it's not like the space for configuration tools is crowded and out of axes and variables to compete on. In short, I completely disagree with you on this. (And this is not a case of NIH). More momentum is needed, not less. As I understand, you have resigned as a developer and is not interested in working on this or something like this in any case. > an installation of any system should put only the basic system in place > (incl. a config management tool), > everything else should be done by configuration management. > this makes it easier to alter the configuration of a machine long after it > has been installed. I think this is nice in theory, but a failure in practice. For example, if someone wishes to change all the partitions from ReiserFS to ext4, they reinstall. Yes, it's possible to do it in other ways, but what a cludge of a configuration manager that would be. People reinstall and this should be made easier. Focusing on managing the post-installation configuration has proved to result in distro-specific configuration tools that are overkill compared to just editing a configuration text file and get it done with. Making the installation quick and easy, without users repeating themselves, is what should be done. > configuration management should not be tied to only the installation process. Configuration management should only be tied to the installation process. For the rest, there's /etc. -- Best regards, Alexander Rødseth Arch Linux Trusted User (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
