Hi Marcus, Marcus MERIGHI wrote on Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:22:02PM +0200:
> But I think I've carefully read everything publicly available > wrt rcctl(8) lately. While i have contributed a few patches to rcctl(8), mostly of a technical nature, not adding to functionality, it's still Antoine's baby and i'm not the right person to post a public summary about it. Besides, we are still far from release and rcctl(8) is under active development. Maybe a writeup might appear at some point, i have no idea. > Are you talking about existing (non-base) management frameworks Yes. There have been various commits in that respect. > or are you heading for an in-base management framework and rcctl > is only the first step? I'm not aware of any such plans (then again, i don't hang out on #porters, and i'm not managing a data center). > (Talking about a ``management framework'' in base OpenBSD > feels strange.) Well, making sure that you remain able to comfortably administer a small pack of OpenBSD machines *without* needing a management framework is certainly among the OpenBSD project goals (KISS). All the same, there are tasks that are almost impossible to perform without using some kind of a management framework, in particular when large numbers of machines are involved, and there are tools in OpenBSD base that the average OpenBSD home user is unlikely to run, like bgplg(8). While simplicity is extremely important, that means that concepts and code ought to be as simple *as possible*. It doesn't mean that complex and complicated stuff cannot make it into base, if the complexity is there for a good reason and unavoidable. It may if the benefits exceed the costs (which makes it less likely to import something huge used only by few people) and somebody sufficiently capable and trusted invests the required effort. That said, i'd be very surprised as well to see a data center management framework in OpenBSD base any time soon, and i'm not sure that could provide any benefits compared to using something from ports. Yours, Ingo
