> have seen that asks questions via a request script does so > as a means to ensure that the software "works" after > installation. It is normally the minimal configuration and > is inadequate for standard administration.
IMHO, a package should not ask anything. Not even where to put the package. There are existing standards where to put optional packages. > Yeah, but which one. And which one will Red Hat, > Novell, HP, IBM, and Microsoft all agree to use? In many > shops a tool that doesn't at least pretend to do all OS's > aren't good enough and a third-party product is brought in > to manage configurations across a wide variety of systems. I understand your point that from a management point of view, a tool that handles "all" OS's would be better. But mostly these third-party tools are more like "bad on all platforms", instead of "perfect for one platform". Maybe we should just focus to make Solaris the best OS for a roll out in large environments. There are lot of examples where Solaris has its own implementation and where it makes perfectly sense (RBAC vs. sudo, pkg vs. rpm, SunSSH vs. OpenSSH, SMF vs init). > Installation is critical to ensuring that you have a solid, > consistent base. Once you establish that, it is so much I think it is much more difficult to keep configuration in sync than (OS-)binaries. And this will get worse when heavily using virtualisation like Zones. > I'm not so sure that the tool used is the most > important part to ensure success. Maybe it's no the time to discuss the tools yet. First we may have to talk about _how_ we want to manage many OS (focus on Solaris) instances, or if we want to leave this field to others... This message posted from opensolaris.org
