On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:13:27PM -0400, Justin Sherrill wrote: > >> >> On 09/02/2017 03:00 PM, Eric D Helms wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 2, 2017 10:22 AM, "Timo Goebel" <m...@timogoebel.name <mailto: >>> m...@timogoebel.name>> wrote: >>> >>> I am wondering if we should name the katello-client repository >>> either foreman-client or just client. I can think of more plugins >>> that need a client package. >>> Timo >>> >>> >>> I was not going to suggest this yet, but since you brought it up and >>> know of other client tools I think this would be a great addition and >>> coming together for Foreman and Katello. For the yum repositories (maybe >>> this also translates for Debian? sorry I am not as familiar with them) I'd >>> then suggest changing our structure to the following: >>> >> It might be even more out of scope, but i could see value in having >> hammer and all the hammer plugins in a client repo as well. >> > > From an issue in puppet-foreman we know users deploy Hammer using > puppet-foreman without installing foreman itself so that might make sense. > Makes me wonder if we should split off foreman::cli into a separate hammer > module. > Some might see this as adding additional overkill but I don't think its too crazy to consider this as it would allow expanding the CLI to more OSes without packaging all of the server into them. Eric > > -Justin >> >> >>> http://yum.theforeman.org >>> -- nightly/ >>> -- foreman/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- plugins/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- client/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- el6/ >>> -- el5/ >>> -- f25/ >>> -- f26/ >>> -- katello/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- pulp/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- candlepin/ >>> -- el7/ >>> -- 1.15 >>> -- 1.14 >>> >>> Another question, though possibly overkill would be if its worth >>> separating out the smart proxy (and plugins) to their own repository to >>> differentiate them more clearly (and potentially support more distros?). >>> >>> >>> On 2. Sep 2017, at 01:48, Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:ericdhe...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Howdy, >>>> >>>> As a lead-in to being working towards migrating Katello's >>>> packages to the foreman-packaging repository, I'd like to propose >>>> a slight re-organization of the repository. As well, to seek any >>>> other ideas or problems any might see with the proposal. >>>> >>>> Currently, the packaging repository is a flat structure with all >>>> packages being represented by a directory containing sources and >>>> a spec file. When looking at it, I find it hard to think about >>>> them in an organized manner given we separate by repository into >>>> foreman and foreman-plugins (and eventually katello >>>> repositories). Thus, my proposal is to let the packaging >>>> repository reflect the repository organization by moving things >>>> into the following directories: >>>> >>>> foreman-packaging >>>> - foreman >>>> - plugins >>>> - katello >>>> - katello-client >>>> >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Eric D. Helms Red Hat Engineering -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
