Lars Damerow wrote:
From Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:37:08PM -0400:
It's not just wishing to make it so. I'm willing to test various
approaches to try to make this work. And don't you think if a reliable
solution was found that it would be supported? Of course it would. And
system config mgmt? Your talking bcfg2 or puppet? By the time you
setup all that xml you've typed 30 times as much as all the
configuration in your entire system. No thanks.
Hi Gerry,
Having been through a large 32- to 64-bit transition a few years ago, I
agree with Seth wholeheartedly. Doing this as an upgrade has a huge
number of devilish details and it's totally understandable that the
Fedora project doesn't support it. Keep in mind that the Fedora project
is staffed with volunteers, very few of which would have the time or
need to keep a 32- to 64-bit upgrade path tested and supported.
And yes, you really do want to make these changes in a configuration
management system, under source control, so that you can avoid getting
into this situation again. Setting up all of that XML will save you a
world of pain in many situations: dead hardware, new OS releases,
educating new employees, and on and on.
Version control of files that you change is always a good thing, but
configuration management tools always add some bizarre abstraction
layers of their own that don't seem portable or likely to handle major
changes in the underlaying file structure. Are there any handy tools to
just throw the files that RPM knows you've changed into subversion or a
similar version control tool so there is no extra effort or abstraction
to learn to be able to backtrack to find what changes were made and
when? With viewvc you could do all the human interaction with a web
browser with an obvious layout.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
