On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:05:08 -0500, James Cammarata <jimi(a)sngx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:46:10 +0100, Jasper Capel
<capel(a)stone-it.com>
wrote:
> On 03/17/2009 08:42 PM, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>> Anyone else have comments? I'm generally amenable to change, but
don't
>> particularly like the idea of calling it a network
>> interface -- the network interface snippets are too complicated as is,
I
>> don't want to make them more so.
>>
> +1 on this one, I really don't feel comfortable about having to add
> exceptions there, it took a lot of effort to get 'em to where they are
> now. :)
>
> -Jasper
> _______________________________________________
> cobbler-devel mailing list
> cobbler-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler-devel
I agree, I didn't know the power stuff was this generic (I thought it was
much more specific to fencing and generating the cluster configuration),
so
using this should be fine with possibly some enhancements as Tom
notes
for
things like DHCP support for the interface.
One other thing I've noticed in checking out the power stuff, besides
lacking support for DHCP, it does not offer any option to set the gateway
or DNS servers for the power devices. While not all power devices would
support these, many do, so we'd probably want to add those features.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.