On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM, scott <mcco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We had sort of solved this problem with a custom fileserver mount
> > point and a subrepo in our mercurial repo, but this only worked when
> > referring to content as puppet://hostname/custommountpoint. As soon
> > as we switched to omitting the hostname ("puppet:///") we can't get
> > the references to the subrepo to work since it wasn't actually
> > modules.
>
> Scott, are you saying that a custom mountpoint "mymount" with a file
> "myfile" wasn't working as:
>
> puppet:///mymount/myfile ?
Thanks Nigel, now that you ask the problem seems obvious.
puppet:///mymount/myfile does work when the client is talking to a
puppet master. It does not work when running with a local copy of the
configuration repo, while puppet:///modules/mymodule/myfile does. This
is expected since there's no actual fileserver available in that case!
It does leave my question about best practices -- is the "right"
pattern:
source => ["puppet:///mymount/apps/database.yml.${servergroup}",
"puppet:///modules/modulename/database.yml" ]
Keeping mymount confidential on the puppet master and a default file
in the modules directory available to "anyone"? This does seem to be
working, and meets my general need.
What if I wanted to create these from a template and avoid having to
keep potentially diverging copies of the same config file around? Not
an issue with database.yml, but I only picked that as a simple
example.
-Scott
--
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.
