Thank you!!! Pretty much that answers my question.
Thanks again. On Nov 15, 6:56 am, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote: > On Nov 12, 12:28 pm, Roberto Bouza <bouz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > Up to right now everything is working great with puppet. I just have > > one questions. > > > Is there a way to tell a type (like file) not to fail if something > > specific happens. > > At that level of generality, why would you consider it anything other > than a failure when Puppet cannot put the system into the state you > asked it to achieve? Puppet will apply as many resources as it can > do, despite any failures, but it doesn't have a sense of optional > state components. > > If you have not already done so, you may find it useful to read the > documentation on the specific resource types you are trying to > employ:http://docs.puppetlabs.com/#resource-types. > > > Let's say I have a directory which it needs to be created if its not > > there and then I mount a file system "ro" on top of that. > > Puppet is good at that sort of thing. > > > The first time it'll work but the second time it will fail with an > > error saying the directory is "ro" and it will fail on recursion. > > What does recursion have to do with it? Anyway, it sounds like you > may have an error in your manifests. > > > There has to be a way to tell puppet that when is a "ro" just check if > > the file is there don't create it (if you ar elooking for a file > > inside a "ro" direcotry) > > Puppet will not modify a file (or directory) it is managing if that > file already has the characteristics you told Puppet it should have. > You don't have to do anything special to get that behavior. > Furthermore, you can specify (replace => "no") that Puppet should not > modify the content of a managed file if it already exists; that's not > relevant for directories or symlinks because they don't have content > as such. > > > I don't know if its clear what I'm trying to achieve. > > No, it's not clear. I will take a stab at giving you something > useful, but in the (likely) event that I miss, do please post example > manifests that demonstrate your problem. > > First, to ensure the presence of a directory named "/ro", owned by > root:root and writable only by root: > > file { "/ro": > ensure => "directory", > owner => "root", > group => "root", > mode => "0755", > # The following should be the default, but since > # you mentioned a recursion problem: > recurse => false > > } > > Puppet will attempt at every run to ensure that the specified > directory exists and has the specified ownership and mode. If you > have a file system mounted on it, then that file system may present > its view of the owner and mode of the file system root, and that's > what Puppet will work with. > > Next, to ensure that a file system mount is defined (e.g. in /etc/ > fstab) and that the corresponding file system is, in fact, mounted: > > # (This version is for an NFS file system. > # Adjust as necessary for other FS types.) > mount { "/ro": > # example: > device => "server.my.com:/exports/ro_remote", > fstype => "nfs", > # I infer from the name that you want a read-only mount: > options => "ro", > ensure => "mounted", > # Puppet should assume this automatically, but it doesn't > # hurt to be explicit, especially when debugging: > require => File["/ro"] > > } > > There are more Mount properties you may want to tweak for your > particular situation. > > Cheers, > > John -- 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.
