Sarah Jelinek wrote: > Joseph J. VLcek wrote: >> Glenn Lagasse wrote: >>> Hey Keith, >>> >>> * Keith Mitchell (Keith.Mitchell at Sun.COM) wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I had a conversation with Sanjay a little bit ago. The subject came >>>> up of how we would provide customization options that fall outside >>>> the basic "install custom packages A, B and C to the VM" - >>>> configuration options such as password, network settings, etc. >>>> >>>> Do we intend to support post install customizations? Would this be >>>> done through SMF enhanced profiles, or in some other manner? Or >>>> are we just going for the options we've discussed so far (package >>>> list, VM settings). >>>> >>> >>> That is an awfully good question. My initial response is 'we'll >>> support >>> whatever the installation engine we use supports'. Which is vague I >>> realize. This is perhaps another requirement we might have for an AI >>> client. Right now, I can think of one option (which seem particularly >>> unattractive to me). The person constructing the images could create a >>> new package which contains any customizations they want to introduce >>> and >>> include that in the installation payload. They would of course need to >>> have some sort of SMF method to actually apply the changes (this is >>> pretty much what we tell people who want to do scripting type >>> operations >>> like they are used to in SVR4 land). >>> >>> This also depends on how the bootable AI image is designed. For >>> instance, if the AI image supports cpio transfer, then the deployer >>> could create a finalizer script to customize the proto area of the AI >>> image while it's being built to include whatever customizations he >>> wants. The problem there is that a) requiring people to write their >>> own >>> finalizer scripts just seems very overweight and b) that's not really a >>> supportable interface. I do think that we might be able to say 'we'll >>> use whatever the AI client provides in terms of customizing the >>> installation payload'. But then we'll need to express that requirement >>> to the AI client redesign effort. >>> >>> Could you post a mail to caiman-discuss to solicit feedback on this >>> problem and possible solutions people may have? I'd like to hear >>> people's thoughts on this. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >> >> The Enhanced SMF project is also addressing this exact issue. I think >> until the eSMF project delivers we should just do what we can the way >> Glenn has described above. I don't think the VMC project should >> provide a "stop gap" solution to this until eSMF is available, at >> least not for our initial release. Perhaps we could document that >> this will be addressed in a later release. > > In terms of the VM project, customizations and eSMF.. certainly some > of the post installation system configuration could be done with this > when 'building' the VM image. However, this would require a reboot of > the VM and then the capture of the .ovf file, assuming this file > contains all of the configuration data upon export? > > At this point in time we do not have much in the way of configuration > specification that is allowed in the AI schema. This can be fixed, but > for the first release of the VMC project it isn't likely we will be > far enough along on the eSMF support to want to add this.
I agree. > > It isn't likely that all of it could be done via eSMF, however. We > need to understand what things are configurable in the VM with regard > to 'system' configuration, and what the VMC team is wanting to export > to the users. OK > > thanks, > sarah > **** > >> >> As Glenn suggests, I'm cross posting this to caiman-discuss to gather >> more thoughts... >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
