-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/09/2014 08:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 11:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/09/2014 08:26 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> Hello, 2014-06-07 0:55 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson
>> <awilliam(a)redhat.com <mailto:awilliam@redhat.com>>:
>>
>> The other is remote system management. The spec says:
>>
>> "Software updates on the Fedora Server must be possible to
>> perform either locally using command-line tools (e.g.
>> yum/dnf)..."
>>
>> (okay, we already cover that in current criteria)
>>
>> "...or centrally by common management systems (e.g. Puppet,
>> Chef, Satellite, Spacewalk, OpenLMI)."
>>
>> well, that's extremely broad. Do we really want to have the
>> criteria say "it must be possible to update a Fedora Server
>> system via Puppet, Chef, Satellite, Spacewalk or OpenLMI",
>> write a test case for each, and block releases unless all of
>> those mechanisms work? Or do we want to focus down a bit?
>>
>>
>> I don’t recall precisely; AFAICT this is mainly a “we shall
>> not break what works” criterion, e.g. that Server should not
>> add a mandatory interactivity requirement for updates that
>> would make it impossible to use some of these tools.
>
> Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the intent of that portion: mainly
> that we commit to not actively hampering the efforts of those
> (and similar) projects from working with Fedora Server (even if
> we eventually support and provide a "better" option).
OK. I can write a criterion based on that interpretation fine;
would it be worth rewording the tech spec a bit, perhaps something
like this:
"Fedora Server will provide a command line utility for performing
system updates and will ensure that updates can always be run
non-interactively. Server will aim to maintain compatibility with
management systems such as Puppet, Chef, Satellite, Spacewalk and
OpenLMI for remote update deployment."
That seems reasonable to me. +1
(it occurs to me that we don't specify anything about repository
configuration or package signing there, I guess they're stuff we
kind of assume is baked into Fedora...)
Yeah, that's a duty I'm perfectly comfortable leaving in the Base
Design jurisdiction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEUEARECAAYFAlOW5xwACgkQeiVVYja6o6MglQCgrUnwnilME720GNW5ZgLwSJaT
568Al2m2aHN760V7L4q0jAhDIPisSTY=
=HEYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----