On 15.11.2013 17:44, Derek Moore wrote:
Practically though, I think an idempotent installer opens a lot of cans of
worms. Do we limit some answers to their original? Take for instance the
REALM. Can someone change it on-the-fly? It would have some deep
repercussions. Similarly, changing the
I meant to say the integration of components and subsystems and providing
some automation is what is truly difficult.
Back then I was coming from Netware NDS, so I already got DNs and RDNs. For
me the holy grail was sendmail + Cyrus IMAP + bind all serving from a
deduped/normalized LDAP schema. I
I don't really agree with you that it is all that difficult to get a real LDAPv3 server up and running. I've built quite a few of them over the years and what I mostly found was it was just poorly documented.Although I will say putting it all into one uniform toolset is ambitious, its not the
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:38:11AM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
The point is that you have a chance to fix the problem (reconfigure
firewall, DNS etc.), run the installer again and it will finish the
installation or fail later on some other problem. It means that you
don't need to start from
Jan Pazdziora wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 03:40:52PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
In reality, it means that you can re-run OpenStack installer on the
same machine/set of machines (with the same configuration, of
course!) and it will re-do everything again. You can re-run
The point is that it
Practically though, I think an idempotent installer opens a lot of cans of
worms. Do we limit some answers to their original? Take for instance the
REALM. Can someone change it on-the-fly? It would have some deep
repercussions. Similarly, changing the hostname. There are all kinds of
corner
Hello,
there is an interesting idea that installers should be idempotent. I have
heard it on LinuxAlt conference 2013 in Brno, Czech republic and it is
implemented e.g. by project Chef [1] and it is used e.g. by OpenStack
installer [2] (used e.g. by SUSE).
What Wikipedia says about
As someone who has fought with using/modifying/QA'ing unstable FreeIPA
installers from the nightly repos, I wholeheartedly second this motion!
Make sure the oVirt guys get wind of this idea also! ;)
PS: semi-related note — Can FreeIPA be made to consume the CSR that results
from the
PPS: you guys might be able to borrow oVirt's otopi installer engine, it
seems to have been created to make install scripts more declarative.
Although to the end-user otopi can seem dense, complicated, and mysterious
(e.g., its weird .conf file syntax). They might need your help making otopi
more
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 03:40:52PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
In reality, it means that you can re-run OpenStack installer on the
same machine/set of machines (with the same configuration, of
course!) and it will re-do everything again. You can re-run
The point is that it should *not* redo
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Derek Moore derek.p.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
PPS: you guys might be able to borrow oVirt's otopi installer engine, it
seems to have been created to make install scripts more declarative.
If you like declarative, you should consider using my puppet-ipa
module to
On 15.11.2013 02:14, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 03:40:52PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
In reality, it means that you can re-run OpenStack installer on the
same machine/set of machines (with the same configuration, of
course!) and it will re-do everything again. You can re-run
12 matches
Mail list logo
