On Fri, 2016-05-27 at 03:43 -0700, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2016, Delbar Jos wrote: > > > We are conscious of the fact that together with the proposals made by > > Felix, > > Luka and Wojtek we are now looking at many "competing" proposals. As a next > > step, we recommend to organize a workshop, at a practical location and > > time, > > where we put everything on the table and define the most appropriate path > > forward to the benefit of OpenWrt as a whole. > > nothing wrong with supporting many different remote management daemons. > > > TR-069 is a complicated remote management system and in order to make this > > initiative a success, we must ensure that the complexity is handled in an > > elegant way and with respect for OpenWrt's core architecture. More than on > > the > > protocol itself, we believe that we should focus on the architectural > > enhancements required to support remote management in general. > > What is it that you think is needed to "support remote management in general"? > > It's worth pointing out that many people are remotely managing OpenWRT > devices, > Ansible/Salt/Puppet/Chef/etc are all common tools for the job.
Er, for what kind of hardware (or it is for VM applications, or what)? I've have used and deployed Puppet on 'normal' servers, and looked at those others as well, and as far as I've seen they are *far* too heavy for a *typical* router scenario, which is currently OpenWrt/LEDE primary target, at least if you want anything besides the management itself (and in many cases not even being able to fit the whole required stack). Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
