[Pulp-list] How about we just merge these core features into Cobbler?

Michael DeHaan mdehaan at redhat.com
Fri Sep 12 17:15:57 UTC 2008

Mairin Duffy wrote:
> Michael DeHaan wrote:
>> Sorry for the late reply, I was looking over the pulp features list 
>> up on the Wiki a few weeks ago.
>> Serious question -- it seems the features mentioned for Pulp (other 
>> than interface features) are suitable to be added to Cobbler in ways 
>> that requires people use less tools
> Where would the interface live, then?
> On top as a separate piece, making calls to a cobbler server? Does 
> that mean pulp would be the interface piece only?
> ~m

Spacewalk maybe?    

FWIW, I'm thinking about making cobbler-web a seperate package in a 
future release as well (I'm pondering moving to Rails to allow some 
content to be better accessed by ovirt, and also to make better use of 
mcpierce's rubygem-cobbler module), and am considering various upgrades 
related to Cobbler's new ACL support, so there's time to consider 
improvements to the way repos are being managed today as well.  

Ultimately I think where such UI bits go depend on what you would want 
to see.   From the list of functionality we see now I don't see why they 
couldn't be in there.


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list