"Hosts" within tinderbox?

[Erwin Lansing]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 01:12:41AM -0700, Ade Lovett wrote:
> 
> On Oct 07, 2007, at 01:05 , Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > That said, do as you like, but in the end, it would be nice to have at
> > least the current feature set of `tinderd' back.
> 
> tinderd is alive and well in HEAD, I put that code back some time ago.
> 
> My question here is one of whether anyone actually uses, in the  
> limited sense provided, the per-host configuration provided by the  
> Hosts table (and code thereof).
> 
> What I'm trying to do here is to get a decent feature-complete set  
> codebase for tinderbox (as it currently stands) based on HEAD, which  
> eventually becomes 3.0, Depleted Uranium, or whatever, with all of  
> the constraints that it is currently under.
> 
> Once we have *that*, then we can sit down and whiteboard what we want  
> to achieve with tinderboxes in general (and I'd personally like to  
> see singleton tinderboxes running roughly the same code as the  
> package building cluster, so a combination of the two systems), and  
> go for tinderbox:NG.
> 
A clean start like this sounds like a very good strategy to me, so if
you hadn't guessed from my previous mail, I'm all for it.

Cheers,
-erwin

-- 
Erwin Lansing                                     http://droso.org
Security is like an onion.          (o_ _o)
It's made up of several layers   \\\_\   /_///
And it makes you cry.            <____) (____>    erwin at lansing.dk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://marcuscom.com/pipermail/tinderbox-list/attachments/20071007/def5baf6/attachment.bin