addpackages removed in FAI 2.9?

[henning]

Thomas Lange wrote:
> [...]
> The simple examples are only for beginners as a good starting point. I
> think everybody using FAI for a couple of hosts will modify the simple
> examples, or create their own classes. So they do not like to get
> upgrades for their config space when upgrading the fai packages. The
> fai package and the simple examples are not strictly releated to each
> other, that means fai does not depends on the simples examples.
> They best is to not upgrade you config space with new examples once
> you are happy with your own config space. Or do not use FAIBASE and
> the other classes provided by the simples examples. IMO noone likes to
> keep his config space in sync with the simple examples.
>   
Hmm, That's not quite true. I remember multiple times where changes in 
the simple examples are propsed as solution for people having one or 
another problem with FAI (I think the thread jere is one example, but 
only one). So we rely on them, but we can't rely on people having 
specific version of these., because they just aren't upgradeable.
The examples pften contain improvements for some hardware and some 
installation problems. So it is in fact very useful, and sometimes 
important to keep in sync with them.

>
>     > It should be no problem to support two type of configspaces, anyway. One 
>     > exactly as the old one, another one where everything starts with 
>     > CLASSNAMES, then the normal structure. Both get parsed.
> I'll bett that will make most fai users confused.
>   
Not If it is well documented.  It could be made configurable which type 
of configspace one wants to use.
> If you want to keep all files (under fai/files) for one class in one
> directory tree, you may want to use ftar for deploying a lot of files
> in a simple manner.
>   
As I said, I do not talk only about files, (stuff in CONFIGDIR/files/) 
but everything belonging to a specific class.

It can often be very useful to share classes. And sharing single classes 
when they are in a configspace as they are now, is defintely not easy.

But probably we don't need to talk further about that until I made a 
proposal on how it can be implemented, so you can see what I mean in code.
Henning