Re: Configuration management, revision 3

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Martin Oldfield <m@mail.tc> wrote:
>     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 ?

I was thinking of a global configuration for everyone, with local
config information for specific machine parameters.  Thus, if there's
a yes/no question where yes implies one prompt and no implies another
it is probably useful to be able to specify both the yes and no
answers for the global case, providing reasonable defaults if the
local machine would make the alternate choice.

This shouldn't be all that complex to manage: for the most part packages
are configured independent of each other.

-- 
Raul


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