On 3/1/2011 9:32 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, russell.fulton<russell.ful...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am managing a fairly small set of machines (network security
monitors) and some of these packages are being installed on just two
or three boxes so spending a lot of time building packages is simply
not worth it. The apps are also updated fairly frequently and I need
to stay on the bleeding edge :(
I'm firmly of the opinion that time you invest now in automating
package creation as much as possible will repay itself very quickly
and be of immense value over time.
I think this is even more important when you have a lot of churn.
Simply being able to flip between versions of the packages quickly
will surely save an awful lot of time.
What he said - really. Three immediate benefits:
- having the build process entirely scripted in the spec file ensures a
consistent build process over time.
- the first time you deploy a new version that explodes, rolling back to a set
of known good binaries is utterly trivial to do in moments.
- as sensitive boxes (security monitors) it's very useful to be able to easily
verify the software binaries, using either the local rpm database or a copy of
the original rpm. for a little extra, you can pgp sign your rpm files too.
--
Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu | For every problem, there is a solution that
WPI Senior Network Engineer | is simple, elegant, and wrong. - HL Mencken
GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC
--
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
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
