On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 13:11 -0500, Michael Stahnke wrote: > One issue with this is that when managing systems, often times you > manage multiple releases (e.g. RHEL 4/5/6). If cfengine3 is available > on 6, I either have to build cfengine3 on 4/5 or get cfengine2 working > on 6 in order to truly manage the environment. This is the same issue > we have with the puppet packages as well. To me, I want them the same > on all releases, but as per the EPEL policy, you'll probably have > increasingly antiquated versions that probably are not compatible with > each other. I wanted to bring this up in the EPEL meeting last week, > but I forgot. > > What are the thoughts on system management tools where a centralized > master is required and is often used to manage multiple versions of > the operating system? > > I am sure there are examples other than cfengine and puppet, also. > >
If the tools mgmt server is going to break in incompatible ways then the mgmt server should be able to install and run on multiple ports w/o stepping on each other. ie: cfengine2 on port foo cfgengine3 on port foo+1 and co-installable pkgs. if that is a goal. -sv _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
