On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/03/2010 05:43 PM, Kelsey Hightower wrote: >> Thanks for the feedback, it seems as though I need to add a lot of >> clarity to the wiki. The goal would remain a runtime tool. Configuration >> would happen in the same way that Puppet does today. >> >> The goal is to replace puppet using the cobbler framework. I have a >> prototype that works as you describe. The order of events does not change. >> > > OK, well, at least this makes it a little more clear ;-) I don't see > why, though, so maybe that's worth another set of paragraphs as well. > > Currently, as it stands, I just have to strongly disagree with your > vision of "replacing Puppet using the Cobbler framework", but that's not > actually worth anything without some sort of motivation; > > In order for Cobbler or Koan to have the same or similar functionality > currently implemented through Puppet, along with it's abstraction level, > multi-platform capabilities not to even mention the workforce and cloud > behind it, is to re-invent the wheel; not a very unhealthy thing to do > in certain situations, but very quickly very much pointless if you're > not seeking functionality beyond what Puppet will or would do. > > It might be way more beneficial to work on better integration, and/or to > make Puppet meet your expectations. > > Kind regards, > > -- Jeroen > _______________________________________________ > cobbler mailing list > [email protected] > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler >
I think its a good idea to try and further the configuration management capabilities in cobbler. I don't see doing that as reinventing the wheel. If you can replace the need to set up a separate run time configuration management system, awesome. I would prefer to build fully configured systems as part of the provisioning process over having to setup another system to do runtime configuration management if at all possible. I think a better work flow is to update your provisioning system (cobbler) and rebuild and reboot into a fully configured system. Do you disagree? I see a lot of benefits from doing it that way. Wouldn't it be a good idea to try and improve making that happen by modelling the rest of the objects (resources, management classes, whatever it should be) inside of cobbler? I guess you can just say no it's not I'm going to just use some runtime config management system but I think you could achieve the same result by just using cobbler and perhaps making that easier or cooler by hooking up cobbler in some way. Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ cobbler mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler
