I've just had a similar issue, although no crash this time.
The recent patches provided by Brice have fixed my issues with file serving in
2.6.0 as long as there's only one source/content.
However, If multiple "contents" are defined it will:
- Evaluate all templates: The logs on the master show "Interpolated template
<template path> in 0.00 seconds" and "Bound template variables for <template
path> in 0.00 seconds" for each template. Shouldn't it happen only for the
first one it finds?
- Set the content of the local file to the last template evaluated.
If the local file is identical to the first template in the array (once filled
in), no file is transferred, as expected, proof that the diff actually happens
I guess .
Also, I couldn't see any error/warning in the logs.
I can easily replicate:
file { "/tmp/bla": content => [ template("module/blabla.erb"),
template("module/hehe.erb") ] }
with blabla.erb --> "bla bla"
and hehe.erb --> "he he"
if /tmp/bla has "bla bla" all is fine, but if it has only "bla" then its
content gets replaced by "he he".
With "sources" though, the first one in the array is being used.
Any reason for that?
Nico
On 08/02/2010 11:46 AM, Thorsten Biel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Russell Jackson <r...@csub.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2010 10:35 AM, Christopher Johnston wrote:
>>> Looks good from what I can tell, did you setup the config.ru?
>>>
>>
>> Can I take this to mean that you have a working passenger installation
>> of 2.6.0? Knowing that it can work would at least narrow it down to a
>> local installation issue rather than a bug in puppet.
>
>
> I have a working installation with 2.6.1 (actually, 2.6.0 and the RCs before
> that worked, too).
> This on Ubuntu 10.4 with mod_passenger 2.2.15 installed via gem.
> Also, I had to upgrade rack from 1.0.1 to 1.2.1, notably removing all
> traces of the old rack version.
> With rack 1.0.1 the master actually did work, but would crash with
> manifests using the file type with more than one source.
>
Confirmed.
It just happens that the node I was using to test against had a such a
manifest. Tested against a node that didn't, and I didn't get the error.
--
Russell A Jackson <r...@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
