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

[Ben Riggs]

Hi,

I've been an avid user of cobbler for a year or more, now, and we use it 
for repo management. It works well for what it does, but, naturally, 
there are functions we currently do by hand or by script that would be 
very convenient to have included. I definitely like the idea of a 
separately maintained repo management program that integrates with 
cobbler. I also think that having repo manage working properly is 
crucial to cobbler working properly. However, the idea of having a 
different interface that uses the cobbler api for more advanced features 
seems like a less than desirable solution.

Instead, I think what would make the most sense in the long run in the 
way of software architecture is for pulp to provide a solid api that is 
used by cobbler. This, however, would be added complexity for anyone 
developing the software and would likely require close oversight. Given 
that caveat, I think that such a design would provide better 
functionality and ease of development in the end.

Ben