2014-03-06 22:03 GMT+01:00 Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:39 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-03-05 20:09 GMT+01:00 Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 15:35 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >
> > I do not understand what you mean. If you deploy a domain controller do
> > you expect it to be in full working condition when you are done
> > configuring it through the role deploy command ?
> >
>
> If, say, one week ago I have used exactly the same command to deploy a
> database, and I still remember that I had to manually modify the firewall,
> why wouldn't I expect the same command to do the same thing about the
> domain controller?  I'd like the OS commands to behave consistently so that
> I don't have to remember too much.

Sorry I do not understand what you are saying here.
$ fedora-role-deploy postgresql
# Huh, it is refusing connections?
# Ah, firewall...
$ fedora-role-deploy --open-firewall-ports potgresql
# That's how it is done in Fedora, then.  Good to know.

# Time passes...

$ fedora-role-deploy freeipa
# Huh, this is already accessible?
 
> OK, informing the user[1] would resolve my concern.  I'd still prefer the
> behavior to be consistent, but this would work.
<snip>
Let's not bikeshed then, can we assume that you agree that it is ok for
roles to have different defaults (your caveats applied) ?
Yes.
    Mirek