Dieter Plaetinck <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:24:38 +0200 > Alexander Rødseth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 2012/7/27 Jeremiah Dodds <[email protected]>: >> > I find the "configuration bundles" idea interesting, but I wonder how >> > much of it is needed on a per-machine basis. I haven't run into many >> > machine-specific issues, but then again I'm sure they exist. >> >> I've encountered a lot of machine-specific issues, setting up (Arch) >> Linux on several computers. Especially laptops often need extra >> modules loaded to make the sound card, network card or video camera to >> work, possibly with a couple of firmware-packages thrown into the mix. >> Specifying all it takes to set up a machine in a single, easy to read, >> text file, shared among Arch Linux users in the same fashion as >> AUR-packages is shared, would be an improvement, IMO. > > 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.
+1 >> > The end-result I'm working toward is providing a service that allows >> > people to generate linux live and install images that have what they >> > want on them already -- I've written a proof-of-concept webapp that >> > installs a package on a live and install cd that I intend to start a >> > kickstarter with[1]. My goal is to allow college kids and newer linux >> > users to create something that will give them access to the system >> > they need or want in case of failure or circumstance, and allow it to >> > perform (if desired) unattended installs. > > 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 agree in principle, especially for "official" installation media. I think there is a place for tools that handle unattended user-specific installs in a fashion that is transparent to the user, but don't think that conifg management should be tied to installation. The tool that I'm building is intended as a service that automates a process involving a few tools, not as a monolithic thing -- at least not in the backend. I've been working on aif a bit, but I certainly wouldn't suggest tacking a configuration management system onto it. >> In either case: no matter the approach and no matter the authors, I'm >> looking forward to the next generation of installers. > > configuration management should not be tied to only the installation process. +1 -- Jeremiah Dodds github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory
