Proposal: Implementation of Server Roles

[Stef Walter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19.06.2014 16:43, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I've finally gotten around to putting together my thoughts on how
> (at a high level) the roles should be implemented. NOTE: this is
> specifically about the Roles as a concept, not the implementation
> of the logic within the roles, except for a couple restrictions I
> make on input and output format.
>
> Please see the design page I've written at
> https://fedorahosted.org/rolekit/wiki/Design/RolePackaging and
> comment on it here.

I like the use of targets a lot. This really fits in well with how we
use systemd in Cockpit.

But is it required that all services that comprise the role be listed
in "Wants"?

For example for IPA, Cockpit has no way to track which units/cgroups
are part of the IPA role, and representing them. That's because
there's this awkward ipa.service middleman which runs systemd commands
on its own instead of declaring dependencies for systemd.

> I will be the first to admit that the "First-Boot Configuration"
> approach is a bit of a hack, but it's a hack that will work
> regardless of installation during anaconda or a live system (it
> defers the configuration step to a systemd unit that runs just
> prior to the first start-up of the role). The implication here is
> strong: while the UI that prepares the configuration may be
> interactive, the content fed into rolekit is non-interactive.

So is there room for the UI to try to setup a role configuration and
ask the user for changes if the the configuration fails? This is
pretty key to building a good UI. Or are UIs like Cockpit expected not
to use a separate configuration mechanism?

Cheers,

Stef
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlOkDfIACgkQe/sRCNknZa8dNwCfV36rnYSn4lMufnXj5h2RKX2d
fCQAoPAjDWElSET/LvpI1l5NU+pFGPrG
=Rl35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----