Hi Ethan,
I think I have a vocabulary problem. Here's how I was envisioning
the world. How's this compare to your world view?
We have a base starting manifest, potentially. If we decide to be
completely free-form (i.e. a program generates a manifest from scratch)
that's different from what I'd envision as a derived manifest; perhaps an
external manifest?
I would see it as I have a static manifest (perhaps for my
desktop); then I'd have derived manifests (perhaps for my test machines);
then perhaps I'd have an external manifest with a program which
iteratively generates manifests to test all possible manifest
combinations.
Perhaps this is a different paradigm or vocabulary than what you
were intending?
Thank you,
Clay
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Ethan Quach wrote:
>
>
> Clay Baenziger wrote:
>> In particular, my question was to how vastly different a machine
>> installation should be from a derived profile. I'm not sure if we want to
>> have two machines vastly differently installed from one manifest.
>
> When using derivation, we don't have one manifest. We have
> however many manifest formations the derivation logic could
> possibly form.
>
>> However, this mainly stems from how I would have run my systems when I was
>> a sys. admin. I would have wanted to define each type of install I was
>> doing in a manifest and only use a derivation system for tweaks.
>
> In these terms, I would consider the result of each tweak a different
> manifest then.
>
>
> -ethan
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Clay
>>
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Ethan Quach wrote:
>>
>>> Minutes from Wednesday's meeting:
>>>
>>> Attendees: Ethan, Ginnie, Clay
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary
>>> ----------------
>>> Agreed on the requirements. The requirements list has been updated.
>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/auto_install/ai_design/DerivedProfilesProblemStatment/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clay had an issue with allowing the decision on whether to mirror
>>> disks or not to be derivable. It is a requirement for now, but further
>>> discussion needs to be had on why this is objected to.
>>>
>>> SVM config removed.
>>>
>>> Extensibility was heavily discussed. This is still a requirement,
>>> but at this point we do not know if it is feasible to provide full on
>>> extensibility of the list of client attributes that are desired to derive
>>> a manifest from. The level of extensibility supported will need
>>> to be determined.
>>>
>>>
>>> Next step is discuss solution proposals. Proposals will be sent
>>> out to caiman-discuss.
>>>
>>> Plan to have a reviewable draft of a functional spec out by
>>> 6/5/09
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -ethan
>>>
>>>
>>> Ethan Quach wrote:
>>>> Meeting Wednesday 5/27/09 to discuss derived profiles.
>>>> Ginnie's and Sanjay's presence requested. All others welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> Goals of the meeting:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Discuss and agree upon which requirements we will address
>>>> from list here:
>>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/auto_install/ai_design/DerivedProfilesProblemStatment/
>>>>
>>>> 2. Next steps - solution proposals, functional spec. Who will
>>>> be doing what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meeting logistics:
>>>> -------------------------
>>>> Wednesday 5/27 10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET
>>>>
>>>> Duration: 1 hr
>>>> US Toll-Free: 866-839-8145
>>>> Caller Paid: 215-446-3660
>>>> Acess code: 8264768
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> -ethan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>
>
