On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 04:36:31PM +0200, Michael wrote: > Yes granted. > > I just think that the format is the obstacle that makes developing some level > of automation too tedious. > > Any upgrade or downgrade implies elements that are very similar for most > software, and others that are not. Most times, it is a kind of a mapping, you > extract information of one set and transform it into another, while often > additionally data sets are modified or newly created. > That's a technical problem and it can be tackled. > > I imagine that any upgrade could do a kind of log which includes what was > changed and how, and in a format that basically could be 'rewinded'. Plus > mapping 'classes' which can be used for both up- and downgrade. > > If you had a development kit for creating such a upgrade/downgrade 'script' > (maybe using a specific new language internally), it would be possible to add > some application specific code at several hooks and have it done, rather > efficiently. You could reuse lots of templates. > > With some configuration standards, developing such a language and kit could > be promising. That's what i mean with 'obstacle'. > > I don't know if there's any effort in 'global' config standardisation, in > linux, and i'm absolutely not sure if a kind of registry would be the way to > go. I just think that sooner or later the problem will be addressed anyway.
The one package I know of that's making any attempt at all to attack this problem is 'puppet', which deals with remote configuration. I think it's intended to work across OS lines, even but I don't know if it has gotten that far yet. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
