Re: Configuration management, revision 3

[Martin Oldfield <m@mail.tc>]

>>>>> "R" == Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:

    R> Martin Oldfield <m@mail.tc> wrote:
    >> Isn't the obvious generalization to divide configuration
    >> questions into blocks, then specify a state machine to navigate
    >> between blocks ?

    R> Er, if you don't mind that you have a nondeterministic state
    R> machine (for example: all possible states exist in parallel)
    R> when you're describing the configuration for many machines.

Is this the right way to think about it ? After all, every individual
configuration must be deterministic, and if you conflate a whole bunch 
of configurations into one uberconfig, then you have to think how
you're going to untangle them again. Do you have a concrete example in 
mind ?

Cheers,
-- 
Martin Oldfield.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org