Thus spake Dann Frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 10:52:42PM -0600, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
> > This is actually one of the big questions on my plate right now.  Some
> > ideas (in no particular order):
> > 
> > - SI post-script that reads a text file (stored in the ./scripts
> >   directory) and invokes System Configurator for each interface
> >   specified.  Such a text file might look something like:
> > 
> >  #<HOST> <IFACE> <IP>      <MASK>        <BCAST>     <GATEWAY>
> >    host1 eth0    192.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 -           -
> >    host1 eth1    192.2.2.1 255.255.255.0 -           -
> >    host1 tr1     192.3.3.1 255.255.255.0 -           -
> >    host1 eth0:1  192.4.4.1 255.255.255.0 192.4.4.255 192.4.4.254
> > 
> > - Maybe incorporate this info into the SystemInstaller database somehow.
> >   Perhaps store it there, but generate this file from it?  Dunno.  Maybe
> >   even have the client query the database directly over the net?  Dunno.
> 
> Ultimately, putting everything in the SIS database seems best.
> 
> I'd prefer adding this data in the autoinstallscript.conf file vs. a
> post-install script - we'd then be able to do it all in one call to SC,
> and without teaching users any new commands/hooks.

The only problem with that is that each machine needs a different entry,
which would require a different autoinstallscript.conf file for each
machine.  Perhaps we could:
- include code in the autoinstall scripts that checks for the existence
  of a file such as above "./scripts/interfaces-by-host" (or similar)
- if the file exists, use it to configure network interfaces
- if it doesn't exist, do one of the current methods of DHCP, STATIC,
  REPLICANT

Now that I mention that, perhaps it makes more sense to have another
--ip-assignment METHOD, where METHOD is TABLE or DB.

TABLE would use a file such as above that lived in the scripts
directory.  The benefit of this is it's text-editable.

DB would use the SIS db.  Benefit of this is canonical data.

My only hesitation to using the DB for everything (in this case) is that
it's very handy to be able to simply edit a text file.  But, perhaps we
could have a $tool that would:
- suck all the assignment entries out of the database, and pop them into
  $EDITOR.
- user can view and edit to his hearts content
- when $EDITOR is closed, if there are changes, the $tool would confirm
  with user, then update DB to reflect changes made to the file.

Yes.  I like that very much.  All the data remains canonical, and in the
database, and our code only has to have one method for looking up such
info -> the DB.  But users can still use a familiar interface (their
$EDITOR) to make changes.  Although, this certainly needn't be the only
interface.

> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
> Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
> a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Sisuite-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-users
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
 Brian Elliott Finley              Argonne, MCS Division 
 Phone: 630.631.6621               http://thefinleys.com
 GPG: 3FF8 D096 0E0C D3F3 29B7  6518 D20B 1931 10F8 EE52
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your signature to help me spread!


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Sisuite-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-users

Reply via email to