On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 04:37:43PM +1100, a.fed...@earsdown.com
wrote:
> Some excellent points, and thank you for being open to having the
> conversation - I know you don't have to, and it is appreciated.
>
> > Profiles which are allowed for a host principal (representing
> > physical or virtual
Some excellent points, and thank you for being open to having the conversation
- I know you don't have to, and it is appreciated.
> Profiles which are allowed for a host principal (representing
> physical or virtual machines) are not necessarily the same profiles
> that should be used for
Hi Fraser, Martin and Alexander,
Thanks for looking into this! For what it's worth, I think for this
particular use case, I'm leaning more towards Alexander when he said:
I don't think you need to group services this way. For managing
services, and this means being able to issue
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:59:58AM +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 05:55 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:12:44PM +1100, earsdown wrote:
> ...
> > To my fellow FreeIPA developers: are service groups a sensible RFE?
> > Is there a reason why they have not been
On 03/22/2016 05:55 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:12:44PM +1100, earsdown wrote:
...
> To my fellow FreeIPA developers: are service groups a sensible RFE?
> Is there a reason why they have not been implemented?
It *is* sensible RFE and it was actually already filed!
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:12:44PM +1100, earsdown wrote:
Hi all,
Firstly, a big thank you to everyone who works on the FreeIPA project - you
guys are my heroes.
Let's talk about the new Certificate Profile and CA ACL feature and some use
cases that
