Re: System Management Tools and versions

[Stephen John Smoogen <smooge gmail com>]

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:35, seth vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 13:11 -0500, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> One issue with this is that when managing systems, often times you
>> manage multiple releases (e.g. RHEL 4/5/6).  If cfengine3 is available
>> on 6, I either have to build cfengine3 on 4/5 or get cfengine2 working
>> on 6 in order to truly manage the environment.  This is the same issue
>> we have with the puppet packages as well.  To me, I want them the same
>> on all releases, but as per the EPEL policy, you'll probably have
>> increasingly antiquated versions that probably are not compatible with
>> each other.  I wanted to bring this up in the EPEL meeting last week,
>> but I forgot.
>>
>> What are the thoughts on system management tools where a centralized
>> master is required and is often used to manage multiple versions of
>> the operating system?
>>
>> I am sure there are examples other than cfengine and puppet, also.
>>
>>
>
> If the tools mgmt server is going to break in incompatible ways then the
> mgmt server should be able to install and run on multiple ports w/o
> stepping on each other.
>
> ie: cfengine2 on port foo cfgengine3 on port foo+1
> and co-installable pkgs.

Sadly they use the same ports and like puppet look enough alike at
times you think they are the same thing. I would package them up as
incompatible with each other... or alternatives of each other.

> if that is a goal.
>
> -sv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines