 |
 |
On 18/01/2012 12:31, Chris Brew wrote: > Hi Ian, > >> oh and of course provide documentation other than the yaim scripts. > <highlight, 50pt, bold, blink, underline, gongs>THIS!!</highlight> > > A few of the services I'm gradually taking out of YAIM control because it > won't do quite what I want (and blatting a file with cfengine is easier than > writing a local YAIM config function and then maintaining it as YAIM evolves > (the second being the hard part, yaim configuration functions seeming to > change more often than the services they configure). I don't have this problem if anything the opposite. I reduced cfengine to copy files and checking rpms. Anything else is in YAIM. I've also added services that are not in YAIM lately. So cvmfs is not configured apart. Said that *my worry* in all this is not YAIM is that YAIM gets dropped not because it is bad in itself but because it is badly maintained (I might imagine that functions change as often as who writes them for example) and it becomes the the wild wild west: each service gets configured how each developer likes it. So my priority is to keep something common. Puppet could be a solution but it requires a number of sites to move to a different management system. YAIM is really the basic. Infact something centrally maintained, with preference to YAIM is at the top of my priorities for the afternoon discussion. If every service had a list of configuration files and a list of possible entries in those files, I'd be a much happier bunny. indeed you can do that with YAIM. There is an /opt/glite/yaim/examples/services directory you can use. Even before that I had split site-info.def at service level and just source them where needed. > If they could provide a > basic commented config file (as with apache, slapd and most other pieces of > software) then I'd be dancing in the corridors of RAL. And if the rpms > registered them a config files and used the .rpmold and .rpmnew convention, > why then I think I'd have to go for a lie down. I agree it'd be easier to have the comments in the config files than in a WEB page. > > Yours, > Chris (who may be getting rather cynical in his old age) Brew.