[wpkg-users] [Bug 53] One Host, several Profiles

[bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.wpkg.org]

http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53





--- Comment #5 from Rainer Meier <skybeam at users.sourceforge.net>  2007-11-20 09:54:08 ---
> MINE: I am using it now for quite a while, and I am quite happy with it,
> because it is compatible to both worlds. I have one profile for the general
> setup of a machine. But two machines are different and require a special
> package so I can add those packaged immediately to the machine and do not have
> to configure another package for that.

So the machines differ by some machine-specific packages. Even with your
solution you need to create a profile for it since it only allows to assign
multiple profiles (but not independend packages) to a host. So as you described
your change you would have to create a new profile which contains just the
packages which are different and add it to the same host.

I imagine something as follows:



I think this freedom of Choice would be useful for others too. Maybe I myself
would appreciate it most if you would implement that solution into the new
Version. I have already setup all my package configuration this way, which
would be quite tiresome to change back if I would like to upgrade WPKW to the
newest version.
<wpkg>
<host name="alCapone">
    <profile id="default"/>
    <profile id="al-capone-pkgs"/>
</host>
<host name="someHost">
    <profile id="default"/>
    <profile id="some-host-pkgs"/>
</host>
</wpkg>
and here the profiles
<profiles>
<profile id="default">
    <package package-id="firefox" />
    <package package-id="thunderbird" />
</profile>
<profile id="al-capone-pkgs">
    <package package-id="some-tool" />
</profile>
<profile id="some-host-pkgs">
    <package package-id="some-different-tool" />
</profile>
</profiles>

Please correct me if this is not how you use the packages - this is just to
clarify how I understood it.

If this is the way you use it it would be quite simple to transform the
packages to the format which is already supported:

<wpkg>
    <host name="alCapone" profile-id="al-capone-pkgs" />
    <host name="someHost" profile-id="some-host-pkgs" />
</wpkg>
and here the profiles
<profiles>
<profile id="default">
    <package package-id="firefox" />
    <package package-id="thunderbird" />
</profile>
<profile id="al-capone-pkgs">
    <depends profile-id="default" />
    <package package-id="some-tool" />
</profile>
<profile id="some-host-pkgs">
    <depends profile-id="default" />
    <package package-id="some-different-tool" />
</profile>
</profiles>

All you need to do is to add a dependency to the customized profiles to the
"default" one (while it's already allowed here to list as much dependencies as
you like).

So my dependency tree looks as follows
 [host]
    \- profile
          |- profileX
          |     |- package1
          |     \- package2
          \- profileY
                |- package3
                \- package4

The only difference to your one is that you have multiple parallel trees
starting from the host:
 [         host          ]
  |- profileX       |-profileY
      |- package1       |- package3
      |- package2       |- package4

Which makes it harder to parse.

I am sorry but I am still not convinced that this change brings any valuable
benefit. It just adds another possibility to achieve the same. Implementing
this within the official release would just add maintenance effort. It will
have to be tested for each upcoming release while it's in use by very few
people while all others are using the profile dependency tree.

You write.
> CON: if I have a lot of different machines, I end up in writing a profile
> with dependencies for every Machine.

It's true that you need to create a "meta-profile" which is just for one
machine in some cases. But the same with your implementation. Instead of adding
a self-contained <profile /> block within profiles you need to maintain the
list of applying profiles (root-profiles) witin <profile /> nodes within the
hosts.xml.

There is that little of a difference in terms of XML file maintenance
(migration for you would be extremely simple) that I still belive we should not
add this to wpkg.js. Sorry.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.


wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users