Charles Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I presume this to mean "chattr +i"-style immutable. > > Frankly, I would think it a bug if puppet /did/ try to control the > immutable bit by default -- the only thing I've used that bit for in > years is as a cheap hack to convince automated management mechanisms > to leave a file alone for a while. :)
we were discussing using the immutable bit to signal that this file is under Puppet control the other day. in theory, it is an error that other processes edit such files, but it seems a bit too dangerous to enable globally, so I'd want it to be an optional flag to be set on a per file basis. a lot of stuff will break when confronted with this unexpected immutability (an immutable file can't even be renamed), and you don't want, say, RPM updates crashing when it failes to rename your config file to .rpmold... one problem for upstream inclusion of such a patch is that it's not very portable, in fact it is not even a general feature of filesystems on Linux (it's specific to ext2/ext3 and XFS AFAIK). -- regards, Kjetil T. Homme Linpro AS --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
