Máirín Duffy wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
Mairin Duffy wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, I was looking over the pulp features list
up on the Wiki a few weeks ago.
Serious question -- it seems the features mentioned for Pulp (other
than interface features) are suitable to be added to Cobbler in
ways that requires people use less tools
Where would the interface live, then?
On top as a separate piece, making calls to a cobbler server? Does
that mean pulp would be the interface piece only?
~m
Spacewalk maybe?
Backtracking a bit, I had one question. Is it a concern that if
the-artist-formerly-known-as-pulp becomes a part of cobbler, that it
would be difficult to tie in pulp functionality with a different
provisioning system? I had thought the original notion of having two
separate apps was partly to provide that kind of flexibility since
sometimes folks who manage their software distribution might not have
any control over the provisioning of machines or the software/process
used to provision the machines. Would pulp still be able to tie into
another provisioning system if it was built into cobbler?
Basically we have two classes of Cobbler users now:
- ones who use the repo management bits
- ones who don't
I see the pulp features as being extensions on the existing repo
management bits, for the most part, though we'd probably want to discuss
them one by one on the lists.
I am not sure everyone really wants a seperate app for each function of
things, more so, they just want tools that are easy to integrate together.
Using the cobbler repo management bits w/o the provisioning aspects
works today, so yes, it would not require that anyone use "cobbler
distro add" or "cobbler profile add" and similar features, just "cobbler
repo add"...
FWIW, I'm thinking about making cobbler-web a seperate package in a
future release as well (I'm pondering moving to Rails to allow some
content to be better accessed by ovirt, and also to make better use
of mcpierce's rubygem-cobbler module), and am considering various
upgrades related to Cobbler's new ACL support, so there's time to
consider improvements to the way repos are being managed today as
well. Ultimately I think where such UI bits go depend on what you
would want to see. From the list of functionality we see now I
don't see why they couldn't be in there.
By "in there" do you mean cobbler web or do you mean spacewalk?
Cobbler web.
I think provisioning systems and managing the content to be
provisioned to those systems are separate tasks. I could see a benefit
to having a UI workflow that pulls together pieces of each integrated
in one UI, but managing a software distribution and provisioning
systems are still separate tasks and I think presenting the
intricacies of both all together in one UI might be a bit overwhelming.
It's blurred. Provisioning essentially means "giving out resources", so
not only can distributions be provisioned, but also packages, also
things like IP addresses and hostnames (which cobbler also does if so
configured).
Let me explain how I'm thinking this could work, based on some of the
stuff I've been working on My Fedora with J5, Eve, Luke, and Toshio.
Maybe it's not applicable, or maybe it is or would spark a good idea.
As you know, koji and bodhi are separate applications, geared for
different tasks (building packages and pushing updates) but those
tasks are related. Each is part of a larger 'package maintenance'
workflow. (There are other overarching workflows involving the two
tools too, such as release engineering but let's focus on pkg
maintenance for now.) Our plan for the My Fedora webui is to provide
integration between the two apps, koji and bodhi, in one UI tailored
for a basic package maintenance workflow. But the bodhi and koji UIs
will still remain, they're not going away, for more specialized tasks
related to each respective domain. Does that make sense?
Perhaps. I guess a related question is, does anyone really like that
these are two seperate apps? I use bhodi for pushing updates, but never
really log into koji and just go by the email it sends me. If they were
better integrated where I could see the build logs when I was looking at
an update -- basically in the same app view, that might be easier.
So I was thinking that maybe pulp could be a UI geared to the current
Satellite
build-your-distro-push-it-out-to-systems-and-update-your-distro-and-update-those-systems
workflow that Satellite (and Spacewalk :) ) users go through today.
This isn't to say there aren't other workflows that would use
either/or or both the repo management bits and cobbler, but pulp would
be an interface specifically geared towards the common
Satellite/Spacewalk workflow we know so well from working with and
going out and interviewing customers of the Satellite product.
If it's geared to that workflow, why is it not part of Spacewalk? I
think that package management (RPMs) is the core use of Spacewalk today
... with the other features as being very useful but kind of a "bonus".
So maybe it could be just done as upgrades to that project if it's more
about that workflow?
Either way, cobbler's repo stuff could remain the backend. I am less
interested in what happens with the Web details (they are very
important, don't get me wrong), but am mainly interested in seeing we
leverage available bits on the backend.
If Pulp would want to be a WebUI that supported the Cobbler API, maybe
that does make sense, but seeing the linkage that exists today where we
can associate profiles with repos in Cobbler, I like them being together.
~m
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
