On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 05:15:34PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:10:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:36:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > sausage-machine style. Then of course you need to keep it up to date as > > > > well. > > > > > > I think that last phrase is the major problem... > > > > Yep, likewise. I still think having each part of our infrastructure as a > > package would be a good solution but I can't currently volunteer for > > that. > > > > Yeah, I'm thinking this is a more feasible approach than FAI now that I put > a bit of thought into it. Any given Debian box does a whole bunch of things, > and you want to be able to take (using the example) packages.d.o and move > it, so if all the infrastructure for packages.d.o was in a package, you'd be > laughing. You could then reshuffle services between boxes very easily. ... which I do at my department using fai-update-system ;) packaging configuration files is not really a good idea: it is too hard to change them. take a setup with FAI and cvs stored configuration files, and you can change your config easily, are motivated to document the purpose of your changes and push them easily to your clients... ATM I am using pserver for the clients' read-only cvs access, because I consider my net trusted. but using cvs over ssh should work too. the main problem is: for the initial installation, you need a way to transfer an ssh key for config space access; maybe fai-bootcd would be a solution for this: it puts the whole installer root on a cd, so you don't even need a way for safely doing nfs... -- c u henning
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature