-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlOV08QACgkQeiVVYja6o6NXvwCaAzX0ogXMG9zeGjxM4QT9XZ8v
+RYAoIPsWWMZOUoKpICoAw2Sb+NZvi4t
=pCeb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----