On 28/01/14 17:33, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
what the Fedora Server working group is coming up with?
The roles stuff? I have, though I'm not sure if I just failing to get it
or something but I don't see anything there that looks especially useful
to a server administrator.
Other than pulling in a group of packages it's not really clear to me
what a role does for me, and I suspect that defining roles that are
generally useful without pulling in more than people really want will be
hard - the classic example being the "database server" role that was
included in the examples and which was going to pull in both postgres
and mysql. Well normally I want one or the other, but not both...
Obviously that can be fixed by having "mysql server" and "postgres
server" roles but at one point do you wind up with one role per package
and basically back where you started?
If I recall correctly there was also some talk of having each role
provide some sort of configuration/management interface that plugged
into a web console but frankly that's the last thing I want on a server
I'm looking after.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx)
http://compton.nu/
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
