On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:49 AM, puppetplayer wrote: > Most entries from puppetc1, zzbasenode and 192_168_100_0 are included > in the puppet catalog file 'puppetc2.zz.example.com.yaml' > Only those entries, that not exist at puppetc2 are included from > zzbasenode. > And only those entries, that are not defined in puppetc2 and > zzbasenode are included from 192_168_100_0. > Thats the problem.
Ah, I see. I thought the problem was that attributes from the "grandparent" node weren't getting passed down. Instead, it sounds like you want to combine values from parents rather than letting the "most local" setting override the others. This is a design decision (that I had nothing to do with) and I think they way it works now is best, personally. You might be better off using classes in your manifests instead of parent nodes in LDAP. That would give you a bit more control over what happens to inherited values. I added support for parent nodes to my LDAP setup, but have never once found a use for it because classes have always gotten the job done. -- Rob McBroom <http://www.skurfer.com/> Don't try to tell me something is important to you if the whole of your “support” entails getting Congress to force *others* to spend time and money on it. -- 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.
