Re: [arch-releng] Helping with AIF

Dieter Plaetinck writes:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:24:38 +0200 Alexander Rødseth wrote:

...

Hi,

2012/7/27 Jeremiah Dodds :

...

I find the "configuration bundles" idea interesting, but I wonder how much of it is needed on a per-machine basis. I haven't run into many machine-specific issues, but then again I'm sure they exist.

I've encountered a lot of machine-specific issues, setting up (Arch) Linux on several computers. Especially laptops often need extra modules loaded to make the sound card, network card or video camera to work, possibly with a couple of firmware-packages thrown into the mix. Specifying all it takes to set up a machine in a single, easy to read, text file, shared among Arch Linux users in the same fashion as AUR-packages is shared, would be an improvement, IMO.

there's a bunch of configuration management tools written for this use case already. like chef, puppet, ansible. many of these concerns are relatively easy to abstract for multiple distributions, so writting a new tool that only targets Arch is not a good idea imho.

+1

...

...

The end-result I'm working toward is providing a service that allows people to generate linux live and install images that have what they want on them already -- I've written a proof-of-concept webapp that installs a package on a live and install cd that I intend to start a kickstarter with[1]. My goal is to allow college kids and newer linux users to create something that will give them access to the system they need or want in case of failure or circumstance, and allow it to perform (if desired) unattended installs.

an installation of any system should put only the basic system in place (incl. a config management tool), everything else should be done by configuration management. this makes it easier to alter the configuration of a machine long after it has been installed.

I agree in principle, especially for "official" installation media. I think there is a place for tools that handle unattended user-specific installs in a fashion that is transparent to the user, but don't think that conifg management should be tied to installation. The tool that I'm building is intended as a service that automates a process involving a few tools, not as a monolithic thing -- at least not in the backend. I've been working on aif a bit, but I certainly wouldn't suggest tacking a configuration management system onto it.

...

In either case: no matter the approach and no matter the authors, I'm looking forward to the next generation of installers.

configuration management should not be tied to only the installation process.

+1 -- Jeremiah Dodds github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory