James Cammarata wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:05:08 -0500, James Cammarata jimi@sngx.net wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:46:10 +0100, Jasper Capel capel@stone-it.com wrote:
On 03/17/2009 08:42 PM, Michael DeHaan wrote:
Anyone else have comments? I'm generally amenable to change, but
don't
particularly like the idea of calling it a network interface -- the network interface snippets are too complicated as is,
I
don't want to make them more so.
+1 on this one, I really don't feel comfortable about having to add exceptions there, it took a lot of effort to get 'em to where they are now. :)
-Jasper _______________________________________________ cobbler-devel mailing list cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler-devel
I agree, I didn't know the power stuff was this generic (I thought it was much more specific to fencing and generating the cluster configuration),
so
using this should be fine with possibly some enhancements as Tom notes
for
things like DHCP support for the interface.
One other thing I've noticed in checking out the power stuff, besides lacking support for DHCP, it does not offer any option to set the gateway or DNS servers for the power devices. While not all power devices would support these, many do, so we'd probably want to add those features.
It seems clumsy, yes, but --management-gateway and --management-dns seems like something we'd want to add in this case.
With regard to repurposing the address field, migrating variables in cobbler is /kind of/ tricky, but there are plenty of forwards compat places in the code where we do it.
With the templates, folks just need to be aware of .rpmnew files on upgrades for when variables change.
--Michael