[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

Máirín Duffy wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
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?


Spacewalk maybe?

Backtracking a bit, I had one question. Is it a concern that if the-artist-formerly-known-as-pulp becomes a part of cobbler, that it would be difficult to tie in pulp functionality with a different provisioning system? I had thought the original notion of having two separate apps was partly to provide that kind of flexibility since sometimes folks who manage their software distribution might not have any control over the provisioning of machines or the software/process used to provision the machines. Would pulp still be able to tie into another provisioning system if it was built into cobbler?

Basically we have two classes of Cobbler users now:

- ones who use the repo management bits
- ones who don't

I see the pulp features as being extensions on the existing repo management bits, for the most part, though we'd probably want to discuss them one by one on the lists.

I am not sure everyone really wants a seperate app for each function of things, more so, they just want tools that are easy to integrate together.

Using the cobbler repo management bits w/o the provisioning aspects works today, so yes, it would not require that anyone use "cobbler distro add" or "cobbler profile add" and similar features, just "cobbler repo add"...

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.

By "in there" do you mean cobbler web or do you mean spacewalk?

Cobbler web.

I think provisioning systems and managing the content to be provisioned to those systems are separate tasks. I could see a benefit to having a UI workflow that pulls together pieces of each integrated in one UI, but managing a software distribution and provisioning systems are still separate tasks and I think presenting the intricacies of both all together in one UI might be a bit overwhelming.

It's blurred. Provisioning essentially means "giving out resources", so not only can distributions be provisioned, but also packages, also things like IP addresses and hostnames (which cobbler also does if so configured).

Let me explain how I'm thinking this could work, based on some of the stuff I've been working on My Fedora with J5, Eve, Luke, and Toshio. Maybe it's not applicable, or maybe it is or would spark a good idea. As you know, koji and bodhi are separate applications, geared for different tasks (building packages and pushing updates) but those tasks are related. Each is part of a larger 'package maintenance' workflow. (There are other overarching workflows involving the two tools too, such as release engineering but let's focus on pkg maintenance for now.) Our plan for the My Fedora webui is to provide integration between the two apps, koji and bodhi, in one UI tailored for a basic package maintenance workflow. But the bodhi and koji UIs will still remain, they're not going away, for more specialized tasks related to each respective domain. Does that make sense?

Perhaps. I guess a related question is, does anyone really like that these are two seperate apps? I use bhodi for pushing updates, but never really log into koji and just go by the email it sends me. If they were better integrated where I could see the build logs when I was looking at an update -- basically in the same app view, that might be easier.

So I was thinking that maybe pulp could be a UI geared to the current Satellite build-your-distro-push-it-out-to-systems-and-update-your-distro-and-update-those-systems workflow that Satellite (and Spacewalk :) ) users go through today. This isn't to say there aren't other workflows that would use either/or or both the repo management bits and cobbler, but pulp would be an interface specifically geared towards the common Satellite/Spacewalk workflow we know so well from working with and going out and interviewing customers of the Satellite product.

If it's geared to that workflow, why is it not part of Spacewalk? I think that package management (RPMs) is the core use of Spacewalk today ... with the other features as being very useful but kind of a "bonus". So maybe it could be just done as upgrades to that project if it's more about that workflow?

Either way, cobbler's repo stuff could remain the backend. I am less interested in what happens with the Web details (they are very important, don't get me wrong), but am mainly interested in seeing we leverage available bits on the backend.

If Pulp would want to be a WebUI that supported the Cobbler API, maybe that does make sense, but seeing the linkage that exists today where we can associate profiles with repos in Cobbler, I like them being together.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]