Bug 78527

Summary: RFE: add versioning in the result file for external maintenance 'hook'
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: R P Herrold <herrold>
Component: redhat-config-kickstartAssignee: Brent Fox <bfox>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.0Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-12-16 18:03:17 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
sample showing the proposed changes none

Description R P Herrold 2002-11-25 07:08:06 UTC 
The present (v 2.3.3-3) result ks.cfg files are unversioned and undated.

May we have someting added along the lines of:

version: 2.3.3-3
date: 2002-11-25
vendor-local: accept and ignore arbitrary data

so that secondary management tools can identify, parse and manipulate these
files more intelligently, please.
Comment 1 R P Herrold 2002-11-25 07:10:38 UTC 
Created attachment 86268 [details]
sample showing the proposed changes
Comment 2 Brent Fox 2002-11-26 17:17:08 UTC 
The version and date fields are no problem, but I'm not sure about the
vendor-local part.  Are you wanting that exposed in the UI?
Comment 3 R P Herrold 2002-11-26 20:34:27 UTC 
Mebbe I should have split the RFE, because the version and date require no user
input handling, too.  /me bad.

My thought was to provide for a optional 'comment' type field, not hidden with a
leading # -- avoiding the leading # permits avoiding the ugliness in parsing
which chkconfig has to do.  Makes for simpler regex's and so forth

It seems to make sense either on a separate tab of its own, maybe called
'Comment', or at the bottom of the present Basic Configuration; _maybe_ it might
make sense on Post Configuration, but not really ...

My thought was to have a panel or section which says something like:

"You may optionally identify this configuration file with a comment which is
otherwise ignored by the Installer; some vendors may user this field to embed
local vendor configuration system management information."

and a one line text entry field.
Comment 4 Brent Fox 2002-12-16 18:03:17 UTC 
I see your point, but I'm going to say no to this one...mainly because the UI is
cluttered enough as it is.  I'm really trying to resist adding more widgets to
the UI.  Closing as 'wontfix'.