On 6 Mar 2011, at 16:59, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:55:49PM +0000, Matt Willsher wrote: >> I have an interest in automation and configuration management and became >> aware of Pure Blends on another list thanks the Jonas' input. >> >> If I understand correctly, in Pure Blend ideal, configuration is controlled >> as a function of the software packages via debconf. This then provides a >> consistent interface packaging a variety of target distributions of Debian >> with much of the heavy lifting done at image creation time. This system is >> then used to provide a consistent way of applying user configuration items >> to the individual packages once the system is deployed. This has many >> benefits: the package maintainer has control over the changes so can best >> manage how they integrate, there is a standard way of configuring software, >> it allows for a module approach to software management as the person dealing >> with a package doesn't need to know about the internal configuration format >> used by the software. >> >> So, some questions: >> >> Is the above a fair assessment of the current state? > > To some extend, yes. > > Debconf is not an "Only True Way (tm)", it just happens to be the most > sensible for handling some (not all) configuration needs.
>> How do you see this goal being achieved? Where is the now on the road to >> this goal? >> What needs to be done? > > These cannot be answered generally: It depends on the configuration needs of > each specific Debian Pure Blend. > > Some blends are so well integrated that they are not called "Debian Pure > Blends" at all - e.g. "GNOME Desktop" and "KDE Desktop". They unfold nicely > from standard Debian install routines. Not to say there is no room for > improvements at lots of places, just that these can be considered well beyond > the "prdouction ready" mark. > > Some blends need more complex configuration which is not yet possible in > Debian. An example is Debian Edu - see http://bugs.debian.org/370342 for an > example of their (very few remaining!) needs. > > > >> How much buy in is there from the broader Debian community? > > What does that mean? Perhaps this is better phrased > >> How would complex configurations be handles? (e.g. BIND configuration and >> zone files) ? > > Depends on each package involved - both technically on its configfile formats > (e.g. ability to consume config.d folders) and practically on the interest of > the package maintainer(s) in taking the responsibility to _maintain_ the > wanted configuration flexibility. > > One possible construct with bind9 could be to a) provide the zone files in a > separate package, b) have the bind9 package improved to include all config > snippets below /etc/bind/include.d and then c) provide with the zone file > package an appropriate config snippet. > > Another construct with bind9 could be to a) have the bind9 package improved > to provide debconf mechanism to create zones. This IMO would be a lousy > approach, however, as debconf is geared towards few general questions which > is seldom enough to setup a senible zone file. > > One _approach_ could be to first file a wishlist bugreport about the needed > configuration flexibility, then try implement the envisioned mechanism > locally provide patches. > > Would make good sense to join forces with e.g. the package maintainers of > resolvconf, as they no doubt are running into similar problems. > > >> How can duplication of data be avoided? > > I don't understand - could you give an example? The > > Regards, > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5818288473508483219@unknownmsgid
