On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> What was wrong with glump and friends?
>
> It's simple, no cryptic formatting of files or craziness. The scripting
> language that runs on the hosts is whatever you want it to be.
There's nothing "wrong" with glump. It does an excellent job at what it
was designed to do. I think that the issue here is that {cfengine,
bcfg2, puppet} were designed to do more that serve out customized
versions of config files, like checking ownership/permissions of files,
the status of servcies, and whether packages are installed.
We just need to look at the alternatives, figure out which one does what
we want it to do, and move on from there. I'm not even sure that we've
agreed on what we want a configuration management system to do for us
yet.
Personally, I'm going to be using glump to manage the configuration
files for my umpteen bazillion wireless access points.
Jeff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
