Hi,
This patch enables buildiso to use the proxy field which was recently added to profiles & systems. For now it's only implemented for SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu breeds, i will look into the RedHat case next week or so.
Patch attached and also in my buildiso branch: https://github.com/jmaas/Cobbler/commit/bedf25763d607e35c330240c9bc64470bdc5...
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Jörgen Maas jorgen.maas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch enables buildiso to use the proxy field which was recently added to profiles & systems. For now it's only implemented for SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu breeds, i will look into the RedHat case next week or so.
Patch attached and also in my buildiso branch: https://github.com/jmaas/Cobbler/commit/bedf25763d607e35c330240c9bc64470bdc5...
Applied, thanks!
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:59 AM, James Cammarata jimi@sngx.net wrote:
Applied, thanks!
Wow thats fast :). Thanks!
James, i'm working on getting some SuSE snippets commited, but i have a question about the new interface_type stuff you've introduced. What's the plan regarding the old fields (bonding_master) etc? Will those be removed in the next release? Or should i still account for those old or once-to-be-removed fields in my snippets?
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Jörgen Maas jorgen.maas@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:59 AM, James Cammarata jimi@sngx.net wrote:
Applied, thanks!
Wow thats fast :). Thanks!
James, i'm working on getting some SuSE snippets commited, but i have a question about the new interface_type stuff you've introduced. What's the plan regarding the old fields (bonding_master) etc? Will those be removed in the next release? Or should i still account for those old or once-to-be-removed fields in my snippets?
They are deprecated and may be removed in the future, and currently they map to the new fields so that if you use them it stores the data in the new format. Also, if you load an old object and save it, the data will be migrated to the new fields.
So, you can use the old fields, but it would be best if you used the new ones.
James,
While working on some snippets i found this:
item_system: def set_interface_type(self,type,interface): <snip> if type == "na": type = "" <-- why?
but interface_type "" is not defined in the FIELDS dict: ["*interface_type","na",0,"Interface Type",True,"",["na","master","slave","bond","bond_slave","bridge","bridge_slave"],"str"],
Whats the reason for this?
Thanks!
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Jörgen Maas jorgen.maas@gmail.com wrote:
James,
While working on some snippets i found this:
item_system: def set_interface_type(self,type,interface): <snip> if type == "na": type = "" <-- why?
but interface_type "" is not defined in the FIELDS dict: ["*interface_type","na",0,"Interface Type",True,"",["na","master","slave","bond","bond_slave","bridge","bridge_slave"],"str"],
Whats the reason for this?
"NA" means that it's just a standard interface, but we don't actually pass that down to snippets, we just give them an empty string. I suppose we could have put "normal" there or something, but that's the way it's been since we've had the bonded interface fields.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM, James Cammarata jimi@sngx.net wrote:
"NA" means that it's just a standard interface, but we don't actually pass that down to snippets, we just give them an empty string. I suppose we could have put "normal" there or something, but that's the way it's been since we've had the bonded interface fields.
Ok, thanks
cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org