'cobbler check' tells fedora 20 to deal with xinetd without docs

[mykelalvis]

Executing cobbler check produces this result:

[root@test cobbler]# cobbler check
The following are potential configuration items that you may want to fix:

1 : file /etc/xinetd.d/rsync does not exist

Restart cobblerd and then run 'cobbler sync' to apply changes.

I see no references in the documentation to managing rsync in xinetd.d regarding cobbler. Some previous editions of Fedora delivered an rsync config in xinetd.d. Apparently that's no longer true after The Massive Change In EVERYTHING Fedora.

So how should I proceed?

[jmaas]

rsyncd is now handled by systemd.

systemctl enable rsyncd.service

also checkout /etc/sysconfig/rsyncd and /etc/rsyncd.conf

[mykelalvis]

I know how to make it work for me. My question was about how to help cobbler handle the issue appropriately. Going back and reading my issue, I clearly didn't state that correctly.

[jmaas]

Good question. Personally i'm thinking about killing "cobbler check" altogether. It's like chasing a moving target especially if we want to support 3+ distros and many versions.

I think we're better off documenting it properly in the manual since that is sort of required anyway.
That is: referring to the distro's documentation for how to enable rsync and just document what to do on the Cobbler side of things...

Cobbler is for the sysadmin type so all this hand holding in code is to me not a sane approach.

What are your thoughts about this?

[mykelalvis]

I agree and think that's a fine solution. Perhaps even baking in some of
the docs locally, although that'd be kind of hand-holding. :)

I think that if the online/offline documentation describes the installation
and configuration process effectively, then 'check' is superfluous.

Others may disagree. :)

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jörgen Maas notifications@github.comwrote:

Good question. Personally i'm thinking about killing "cobbler check"
altogether. It's like chasing a moving target especially if we want to
support 3+ distros and many versions.

I think we're better off documenting it properly in the manual since that
is sort of required anyway.
That is: referring to the projects documentation for how to enable rsync
and just document what to do on the Cobbler side of things...

Cobbler is for the sysadmin type so all this hand holding in code is to me
not a sane approach.

What are your thoughts about this?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/791?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email#issuecomment-40756700
.

[alanoe]

Personal opinion: I like cobbler check because it helps beginners, it helped me in my first Cobbler server installations. I agree it is a moving target which adds code maintenance effort, but I think it is worth it. Documenting somewhere which target distros/distro versions were tested is an option to align expectations.

[jmaas]

Looking at the code there i see that most checks aren't even implemented for the ubuntu & debian cases. And then the implementation for the rpm based systems is outdated (no systemd checks).

I really dislike this coupling of deployment scenarios in the code.

[alanoe]

JM> Looking at the code there i see that most checks aren't even implemented for the ubuntu & debian cases. And then the implementation for the rpm based systems is outdated (no systemd checks).

As I mentioned above, we could document which target distros and distro versions were tested, this makes easier (1) for Cobbler developers who wants to improve the feature and (2) for Cobbler users who then would know in which distros the feature works and would not even try if they are using something else. imho we do not need to support all distros.

I am sure "cobbler check" helps the user, but we can drop it if we conclude we are not able to support the diversity of available Linux distributions (mainly Red Hat / Debian differences).

[jmaas]

cobbler check has been updated to support the systemd case for rsync.