[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0051] IPA server and replica installers can accept options from config file

[Petr Vobornik]

On 07/29/2015 05:13 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 01:25 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> Dne 29.7.2015 v 12:20 Martin Babinsky napsal(a):
>>> Initial attempt to implement
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4517
>>>
>>> Some points to discuss:
>>>
>>> 1.) name of the config entries: currently the option names are derived
>>> from CLI options but have underscores in them instead of dashes. Maybe
>>> keeping the CLI option names also for config entries will make it easier
>>> for the user to transfer their CLI options from scripts to config files.
>>
>> NACK. There is no point in generating config names from CLI names, which
>> are generated from knob names - use knob names directly.
>>
> The problem is that in some cases the  cli_name does not map directly to
> knob name, leading in different naming of CLI options and config
> entries, confusion and mayhem.
>
> These are some offenders from `ipaserver/install/server.py`:
> http://fpaste.org/249424/18226114/
>
> On the other hand, this can be an incentive to finally put an end to
> inconsistent option/knob naming across server/replica/etc. installers.

If the names are different than cli names, then they should be made 
discoverable somehow or be documented.

>>>
>>> 2.) Config sections: there is currently only one valid section named
>>> '[global]' in accordance with the format of 'default.conf'. Should we
>>> have separate sections equivalent to option groups in CLI (e.g. [basic],
>>> [certificate system], [dns])?
>>
>> No, because they would have to be maintained forever. For example, some
>> options are in wrong sections and we wouldn't be able to move them.
>>
> I'm also more inclined to a single section, at least for now since we
> are pressed for time with this RFE.
>
> That's not to say that we should ditch Alexander's idea about separate
> sections with overrides for different hosts. We should consider it as a
> future enhancement to this feature once the basic plumbing is in place.
>>>
>>> 3.) Handling of unattended mode when specifying a config file:
>>> Currently there is no connection between --config-file and unattended
>>> mode. So when you run ipa-server-install using config file, you still
>>> get asked for missing stuff. Should '--config-file' automatically imply
>>> '--unattended'?
>>
>> The behavior should be the same as if you specified the options on the
>> command line. So no, --config-file should not imply --unattended.
>>
> That sound reasonable. the code behaves this way already so no changes
> here.
>
>>>
>>> There are probably other issues to discuss. Feel free to write
>>> email/ping me on IRC.
>>>
>>
>> (I haven't looked at the patch yet.)
>>
> Please take a look at it ASAP. I am on PTO tomorrow and on Friday, but I
> will find time to work at it in the evening if you send me you comments.
>


-- 
Petr Vobornik