[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: A new utility to augment yum - machine cloner



David Timms <dtimms iinet net au> wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand wrote:

[...]

> While I can see the benefit {security / known starting point} I have
> needed to a few times get a machine that is already installed {ie raid
> already setup, partitioned, formatted and os operating} to match
> another package wise, in trying to determine if a fault is a bug or
> misconfiguration on my part. Reinstalling from scratch by kickstart
> would seem to waste more time.

I don't see how. Generate the ks file, then you have the full package
list. If both are up to date (why else go chasing bugs?), an update of the
target gets you 90% there.

> Horst: knowing that you would be unlikely to use such a python/yum
> tool,

Yep.

>       do you see any specific problems with the general design of
> Jon's tool, for example in terms of security, or practical application
> that would be a show stopper in terms of fedora inclusion ?

Not directly, but it is a duplication of what can easily done today, for a
job that isn't that common in the first place. Better make the extant tools
smarter (i.e., make the ks generation note and stash away the changed
configuration files (or, even better, patches...) for easy restoration
would go a /long/ way to a "rebuild machine from scratch" toolset). I'd use
something like that to snapshot a machine and rebuild/clone it, perhaps
even with the next Fedora version. Sure, purely local stuff (IP addresses,
tweaks for the exact video card on board, disk size, etc) probably would
have to be checked/fixed by hand, but even there DHCP and similar are your
beloved friends.

Note that to make any like this possible the RPMs would have to be extra
careful in noting what is configuration, what data files, etc. I don't
think we are there yet across the board.

> For example would it be important for the developer of such a tool to
> *not* be the fedora packager for it, so that a separate individual is
> in the loop to verify / quality assure the underlying source before
> requesting builds ?

The recent flamef^Wdiscussions here (involving ESR) on this point would
seem to indicate that it is wise to have a separate packager. But if it is
a Fedora/Red Hat only tool, that would not be necessary IMVHO.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]