On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:44:04 -0800, brett lentz <brett.lentz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any reason Cobbler can't ship these loaders in its own
rpm or
via sub-package? (copyright, file size, etc.) Expecting users of
Cobbler to hit
fedorapeople.org for pieces of the software strikes me
as a sub-optimal design and doesn't account for those who have strict
firewalls or proxies or no connection at all between their
provisioning equipment and the internet.
I've not looked into this myself, but I was told by Dehaan that it was
due to Fedora policy. We would have to ship binaries in our source that
were not built from the original sources. As I understand things, that
would be unacceptable. So, the only solution was to provide an out of
band method of retrieving the file. Hence, the fedorapeople site. I
don't know any other solution that would pass muster with respect to
Fedora policy.
I suspect the ideal solution is keeping all things that are required
to run Cobbler in all supported configurations in one place; for
rpm-based installs, that place tends to be within the rpm. An optional
sub-package(s) sounds like the right answer to me. In the interest of
having support centralized as far upstream as possible (i.e. in
Cobbler, not just in Satellite or Spacewalk), having packages named
something along the lines of "cobbler-s390", "cobbler-ppc", etc. is
probably ideal, but even just a single "cobbler-other-arches"
sub-package might be sufficient.
As I said above, we are unable to do that when packaged for Fedora and
EPEL. However, this would be the ideal solution for Satellite.
--
Scott Henson
Red Hat CIS Operator
WVU Alum BSAE/BSME