----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Young" <ayoung(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:40:51 PM
Subject: Re: keystone config file defaults
I'd say, no. We should not be setting a default at all. Ther is a
readically different approach between Fedora and Debian regarding
state that an application is in post Package install. The Debian
approach will make you go through the configuration, and leave you
with a working application. THe Fedora approach assumes that you are
doing an unattended install and upgrade, and that you will
the application afterwards.
Hmmm. Good points. One thing I *really* dislike about the Ubuntu packages for example is
that they automatically start up the various services when you install a package. This can
get sort of tricky when you try to deal with that in combination with configuration
management. As for defaults however... it seems reasonable to default to something more
robust than the key/value store backend.
I'd say SQLite is a good middle ground as a default.
Our sample configuration file should instead be commented to show the
user what they need to set in order to get the various back ends
working. But assuming MySQL, SQLITE, or LDAP, will be wrong for
subset of users.
On 02/22/2012 12:30 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alan Pevec"<apevec(a)gmail.com>
>> To: "Fedora Cloud SIG"<cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:14:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: keystone config file defaults
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Dan Prince<dprince(a)redhat.com>
>>> Reverse that diff!
>>> < driver = keystone.identity.backends.kvs.Identity
>>>> driver = keystone.identity.backends.sql.Identity
>> yeah, I do that
> Ah. Thanks Alan. I must have pulled it just before that change went
> in this morning.
>> Next on my list is to switch to mysql, same like openstack-nova
> Sounds good.
>> cloud mailing list
> cloud mailing list
cloud mailing list