On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michal Novotny wrote: >> I am no flatpack expert, but I think that really any container technology >> in question should be just a porter of an rpm or set of rpms and there >> should (could) be packaged ansible scripts that are able to setup and >> spawn those containers e.g. in OpenShift or just on a host machine through >> ssh or by other communication means. This approach is not bound to a >> particular container technology and therefore provides huge amount of >> flexibility. We could also actually provide flatpacks for downloading to >> create some 'halo' effect but that again should be result of an automated >> image-creation process in which we should be able to chose what kind of >> containerization we want. > > Keep in mind that Ansible is also something small-scale admins don't use. It > only makes sense at all if you have at least 2 servers, and it is only > really worthwhile if you have several, mostly identical servers. If you have > just one server, or two or three servers with very different configuration > from each other, it's just not worth it. So the workflow you suggest > introduces an extra learning curve. Actually I disagree with you, I know people that use ansible to manage their laptop config (IE a single device) so that if they rebuild it they can get all their configs back quickly. While ultimately you do get better scale with ansible across a lot of similar devices it's by no means the only way people use it, just because it's not the way you would. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
