> I was referring to attached patches:
>
> 1) Add code to allow proper standalone ISO building for SuSE and Debian/Ubuntu
> 2) New feature: build standalone ISO from the web interface (from the
> distro view)
> 3) Buildiso behaviour (wrt to included profiles/systems) changed
> (again) after feedbac
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:35 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> Yep, applied and pushed. As for the question, maybe fields do default
> to that - I wasn't aware if they did, but it's best to explicitly
> place them rather than chance it.
>
Thanks again!
>
> Did I miss some? I thought I had everythin
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:22 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I went ahead and merged these, just submit another patch for the
>> field_info.py stuff and I'll merge that in later.
>>
>
> Thanks again, the patch for the field_info stuff is
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:22 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> Ok, I went ahead and merged these, just submit another patch for the
> field_info.py stuff and I'll merge that in later.
>
Thanks again, the patch for the field_info stuff is attached. Is this
what you meant?
Why aren't other text fields
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> And then these i'd like to get in master:
>
> 3842-Introduce-a-status-field-to-system-objects
> 3846-Remove-FreeBSD-from-the-unix-breed-as-it-has-its-own
> 3854-Add-a-proxy-field-to-profile-and-system-objects
Ok, I went ahead and merged these,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:45 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>>> 3854-Add-a-proxy-field-to-profile-and-system-objects
>>
>> It doesn't look like you're adding the stuff to field_info.py for the
>> web gui mappings. Could you submit another patch fo
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:45 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>> 3854-Add-a-proxy-field-to-profile-and-system-objects
>
> It doesn't look like you're adding the stuff to field_info.py for the
> web gui mappings. Could you submit another patch for that as well and
> make sure everything works from both t
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:38 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>> Thanks for merging! I didn't know you had commit access...
>> I've got another 6 for the buildiso stuff:
>>
>> 0001-Fix-standalone-ISO-building-for-SuSE-Debian-and-Ubuntu
>> 0002-Build-standalone-ISO-from-the-webinterface
>> 0003-Buildiso-
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:38 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> I believe I got all these in this morning.
>
Thanks!
>> And then these i'd like to get in master:
>>
>> 3842-Introduce-a-status-field-to-system-objects
>
> I believe there were concerns about this, being that we typically used
> ksmeta
> 3854-Add-a-proxy-field-to-profile-and-system-objects
It doesn't look like you're adding the stuff to field_info.py for the
web gui mappings. Could you submit another patch for that as well and
make sure everything works from both the CLI and web gui? Also, where
is this being used? I don't see a
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
>>
>> If there are any that were missed, let us know. Thanks!
>
> Hey James,
>
> Thanks for merging! I didn't know you had commit access...
> I've got another 6 for the buildiso stuff:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> If there are any that were missed, let us know. Thanks!
Hey James,
Thanks for merging! I didn't know you had commit access...
I've got another 6 for the buildiso stuff:
0001-Fix-standalone-ISO-building-for-SuSE-Debian-and-Ubuntu
0002-
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>> I will change my patches so that ALL profiles are always on the ISO.
>
> Jörgen, were any of your patches ever applied? If not, send me a list
> (either privately or to the devel list) and I'll get them applied.
>
Actually I went back and found all these, and applied
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Benjamin Riggs wrote:
>> We (by and large) don't put individual systems into cobbler. Rather,
>> we install based off of a number of profiles. We don't run our own DNS
>> or DHCP servers; thus, cobbler isn't a
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Benjamin Riggs wrote:
> > We (by and large) don't put individual systems into cobbler. Rather,
> > we install based off of a number of profiles. We don't run our own DNS
> > or DHCP servers; thus, cobbler isn't an authoritative source and
> > maintaining its dat
> Now i'm wondering who is using the netboot iso and the profiles as provided
> in the boot menu, instead of the system records in the menu?
> Could you also describe your use case, e.g. why are you using this feature?
I know I'm a bit late on my answer, but better late than never? We currently
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Benjamin Riggs wrote:
> We (by and large) don't put individual systems into cobbler. Rather,
> we install based off of a number of profiles. We don't run our own DNS
> or DHCP servers; thus, cobbler isn't an authoritative source and
> maintaining its database woul
We (by and large) don't put individual systems into cobbler. Rather,
we install based off of a number of profiles. We don't run our own DNS
or DHCP servers; thus, cobbler isn't an authoritative source and
maintaining its database would just be additional work for us.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:40
Hi all,
I'm currently working on some patches regarding the cobbler buildiso feature.
Now i'm wondering who is using the netboot iso and the profiles as
provided in the boot menu, instead of the system records in the menu?
Could you also describe your use case, e.g. why are you using this
feature
19 matches
Mail list logo
