Ryan, While I think there is something to be said for learning some lessons the hard way, trying to model all the nuanced differences of every node with Puppet is not taking advantage of the tool and is arguably more trouble than it is worth.
Often, it is better to step back and figure out what you want and need and then build that, than it is to automate whatever is there now. This is an investment. Pay down the principle. My 2 cents, Andrew On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Jeff Leggett wrote: > > I see what you're doing, but I question WHY? The amount of time you > > have spent troubleshooting this could have been better spent bringing > > up a small LDAP Directory that would both resolve these issues, work > > well with Puppet, and allow you a lot more flexibility in the future. > > > > While I agree that LDAP is the ideal solution (as I mentioned in the > original post), that's a separate issue on someone else's plate and my > design cannot assume a directory service that does not currently exist > in that environment. Once it is in place, I will obviously modify the > configs to accommodate that setup since Puppet, as you mentioned, works > well with LDAP. So while I don't disagree, I don't want my Puppet > rollout being blocked by an LDAP rollout. That being said, I gained a > much better understanding of how Puppet works, and learned some Ruby in > the process, which I hardly see as a waste of time. But I do appreciate > the feedback. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
