45 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
45 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
|
username="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-czsfuWENKQ0GI8l0gnGTeF1JEli1mA0"
|
|
nickname="Andreas"
|
|
subject="comment 4"
|
|
date="2015-04-15T10:15:17Z"
|
|
content="""
|
|
Well thanks a lot, and yes I am learning: propellor has a lot
|
|
of powerful features under the hood already.
|
|
|
|
I still remain sceptical for the time being:
|
|
|
|
Propellor's overall approach seems: one spin of propellor does ensure
|
|
that a complete systems is properly installed (and then one can
|
|
declare exceptions: don't check this every time...). I can even see
|
|
how this is useful: if I where a sys admin with a huge farm of
|
|
systems, I wouldn't want to deal with half installed systems, but just
|
|
have propellor do a complete job.
|
|
|
|
As far as I am only concerned with a few personal computers of mine, I
|
|
prefer to stick to my task by task approach, though, and for tasks
|
|
that come up reapeatedly (like keeping my apt cache + installed
|
|
packages up to date) that seems reasonable to me as well. - having
|
|
only a minimal required configuration for a host, and then building
|
|
upon that (I think/hope, you got the idea by now). The fact, that
|
|
this model is nicely supported by ansible, seems to suggest at least,
|
|
that this kind of reasoning/approach is not completely flawed.
|
|
|
|
What is not 100% clear to me: if propellor could be bent to support my
|
|
kind of workflow: I would think that it's possible? (even though I
|
|
might not have the time to bend it that way myself). Or are there any
|
|
fundamental issues with it?
|
|
|
|
What I am suggesting is: that propellor be at my disposal,
|
|
more as a library, and would not also impose a certain
|
|
command line interface / workflow on me.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, you would certainly win me as a user (don't know
|
|
how much that counts, and cannot speak for other people's
|
|
needs).
|
|
|
|
Thanks anyway.
|
|
Andreas
|
|
|
|
"""]]
|