On Monday 27. May 2019 15.25.00 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Wauw! Probably the first ever review of Boxer :-)
Probably not a fair one, though... > Yes, I think it is an accurate description. As for "[not] much of > immediate use" I believe it stems from being about reusable patterns - > so if the project at hand cannot benefit from any of the existing > patterns (in package boxer-data) then it is _more_ work, not less, to > use Boxer if measured by that one project alone. I didn't realise (or see) that there was a boxer-data package. Looking at it again, it does seem like a framework for writing deployment recipes by defining the nature of nodes (specific systems) in terms of classes (kinds of systems, described in terms of physical characteristics and other capabilities). It seems that the work performed is focused on installing packages, although I also see that there are "tweaks" which allow shell commands to be used where packages would presumably need extra configuration. I don't have any real familiarity with "orchestration" type solutions, but it gives me the same kind of impression. I imagine that Boxer would be useful in preparing images to deploy on devices like those discussed on this list, which I suppose isn't too far off from things like FreedomBox, presumably the original target of this work. Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/community http://www.tinkerphones.org
