\begin{James Wilkinson}
> This one time, at band camp, Herbert Xu said:
> >Personally I prefer a layered "meta" package approach. Now if only every
> >Debian package repsected the sanctity of configuration files as they must...
>
> Erm, how does a package one one system get the configuration from
> another to respect said sanctity of the package? It looks like i can
> deploy configurations from the cfengine master, and that is what I am
> looking for; rather than sshing to n machines and editing the same line
> on all of them manually.
debconf (in woody) can "inherit" package configuration from a central
machine. ifaik, it currently works using an nfs-shared config tree - a
client/server method is awaiting volunteers ;)
this is only good for package installation. you still need to install
the packages in the first place, modify files outside debconf scope
(such as hardcore MTA configs), monitor processes, set file
permissions, check available disk space, check NFS mounts, etc.
what is needed is:
1. a rewrite of cfengine to clean up the variable scoping mess, and
the nasty way the editfiles commands work.
2. some addition to cfengine to support "packages" - ideally in a
vendor-independent manner. so eg: a cfengine "class" is defined if the
package containing a particular program is installed, and a
vendor-indpendent way to ask for said package to be installed or
removed. afaics, the existing cfengine "plugin" mechanism isn't up to
this.
--
- Gus
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
