Rainer Meier <r.meier at wpkg.org> writes: > I really don't see the reason for it at the moment. If you would like to > assign multiple profiles hard-coded to a host then you could do that > using hosts.xml. Why are people afraid that their host.xml grows a bit more? > If you use a different /profile switch on each host then this settings > are hard-coded on the client and much more difficult to change later > on. I was not aware of that. > I am absolutely sure it is more convenient to have the definition within > the hosts.xml and let WPKG chose the right host definition by exact host > match. If some "group" of hosts belong to the same profile like > "graphics workstation" or similar, then just use a naming convention. > Windows can do that by itself when installing new workstations. It can > prefix the name with a pre-defined string so you could use a rule like > "gfx.*" to match all of them. > And do not complain about that you would have to rename the workstations > which are already in use. Renaming a workstation is not really more > effort than setting a custom WPKG command line on each machine. > If you use the techniques of WPKG (define hosts in hosts.xml) then you > can even change the assigned profiles later on - which is impossible if > the profile is hard-coded on the client. > > So the answer at the moment is no. I don't think I will implement such a > feature which potentially causes confusion, misunderstandings and > problems while there is already something available which supports all > requirements. Ok, no problem, thanks. -- Daniel Dehennin RAIP de l'Orne |