On December 30, 2011 04:31PM > Author: Mark > I think your position is a little exaggerated. The COPBL was envisaged as a > "community effort" > -- a set of expanding examples -- that alas didn't bear fruit. It has become > a defacto standard > (which is useful and has value), but it has never been presented as a > supported, quality > assured library to meet every need. It is a set of examples that are commonly > useful. > Eventually, I think it has to go in that direction, due to the increasing > scarcity of sysadmin > skills in a growing industry,
I was under the impression that the COPBL was supported. It's referenced as a standard library and an interface layer to bring standardization to CFEngine. http://cfengine.com/starterkit On 01/04/2012 09:37 AM, no-re...@cfengine.com wrote: > Author: davidlee > Re: COPBL and the "duck test". It is seen in duck habitat (on the official > website, right alongside the ref. manual). > It walks like a duck (it travelled to our systems via the RPMs on the > official cfengine website). > It looks like a duck (at the very head of the file I see "Copyright (C) > Cfengine AS"). It talks like a duck > (the layout, style and "voice" are like those of the ref. manual). It even > has duck breeding! > (some of its features are clearly cloned from the ref. manual). I think a lot of people think its a duck. > such an enterprise. But, as COPBL itself shows, I think some initial ground > rules > (naming conventions, formatting conventions), coupled with some significant > peer-review > (itself with guidelines about portability, flexibility, fail-safe defaults, > error-trapping) are essential. I don't necessarily agree that the ground rules are as important for what it sounds like they are working on. I think what would be nice to see is people writing more modular bundles that can be shared, the cream will (hopefully) rise to the top. It would be nice if the cream could be reviewed and put into the COPBL with some standardization. I like the idea of all the COPBL promises being prefixed with "copbl_" or "stdlib_" whatever to make it stand out where its from. I think the problems with the COPBL and this effort are separate issues though and should be treated as such. Provide an easy/convenient and standardized way to contribute and use community contributions. Also fix the COPBL or add a new stdlib that has a higher quality control and phase out the COPBL. -- Nick Anderson <n...@cmdln.org> _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
