Comments on: Universal configuration framework and the Fedora Directory Server?

By: Ian Murdock

Ian Murdock — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:44:09 +0000

Ryan,

Interesting thought. I’ll think more about it.

-ian

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 06:27:19 +0000

Perhaps Progeny could facilitate software to enable easy integration of LDAP and debconf using debconf’s LDAP driver. There are a lot of pieces out there, but not a lot of tools to help us integrate and manage them.

By: Alexander Antoniades

Alexander Antoniades — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:28:54 +0000

Everytime I read something interesting about Red Hat I vow to install the next release of Fedora Core and check it out.
Then I remember they chose Yum over Apt, and all that implies. I shake my head and go back to what I was reading.

By: Soumyadip Modak

Soumyadip Modak — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:12:32 +0000

Michael, have you gone through the build instructions ?? It doesn't seem that the thing is properly organised. There is no install target in the makefile. I would wait for a couple of weeks to let the people clean up the thing a bit, and simplify the build procedure.

By: David Mohring

David Mohring — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:31:23 +0000

See: Services, Roles and Xen
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-June/msg00158.html

The point being is that if your storing configuration details for each in a single generalized config file, the remote host of the config file could be any type of server that you can point a URI at. ftp,tftp,nfs,https. etc.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:18:42 +0000

Mr. Blizzard sure dances around what is and isn’t open source to Red Hat.

The cues are subtle, but they clearly want to move it into their proprietary offerings after they’ve gotten enough free help. Wait, that sounds like Fedora Core…..

I’m not an expert in these things, but is it a huge project to build their sources as a Debian binary/package?