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

Martin Babinsky mbabinsk at redhat.com
Wed Jul 29 15:13:25 UTC 2015


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.
>>
>> 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.

-- 
Martin^3 Babinsky




More information about the Freeipa-devel mailing list