Yeah this doesn't seem to be old versions of Puppet.
So from my other email ... can you show us the code where you are
doing your comparison for $puppetversion? I have a feeling I might
know what it is ... although I'm probably wrong ...
In fact - grep for 'puppetversion' in all of your puppet code ... I'm
curious :-).
ken.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Douglas Garstang
<doug.garst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, R.I.Pienaar <r...@devco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Luke Bigum <luke.bi...@lmax.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Err, what is that 0.25-5 doc folder and what RPM owns it?
>>> >
>>> > rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.25.5
>>> >
>>> > If nothing owns it, you've pretty much proved your system has old
>>> > Puppet artefacts lying around. Personally I wouldn't trust any of
>>> > the
>>> > content in /usr/lib/ruby now. Is this a production system? Anything
>>> > else use Ruby on it?
>>> >
>>> > I'd start to get heavy handed as this point:
>>> >
>>> > tar -cvzf /tmp/usrlibruby.tar.gz /usr/lib/ruby (take a backup)
>>> > yum remove ruby puppet facter (remove all your RPMs)
>>> > find /usr/lib/ruby (what's left in your Ruby libdir?)
>>> > locate puppet (again, what's left over, should be almost nothing
>>> > but /
>>> > var/lib/puppet, /var/run stuff and config files)
>>> >
>>> > Now you could try reinstall and compare your backed up version of
>>> > /usr/
>>> > lib/ruby with your new one.
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 12, 11:47 pm, Douglas Garstang <doug.garst...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> [root@hproxy11 ~]# locate puppet
>>> > ...
>>> >> /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.25.5
>>>
>>> So... this doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> I just did this on the client:
>>>
>>> rpm --erase puppet
>>> rpm --erase facter
>>> find / -name "*facter*" -exec rm -rf {} \;
>>> find / -name "*puppet*" -exec rm -rf {} \;
>>>
>>> And then reinstalled puppet and facter, cleaned the certs etc, and
>>> restarted puppet.
>>>
>>> Problem persists...
>>
>> maybe these rogue files didnt come from rpm? then it wouldnt know to remove
>> them.
>
> Maybe not, but I'm sure the rm -fR would have taken care of any that
> weren't, no?
>
> I think we all know that installing puppet 2.7.3 from RPM's isn't an
> issue, or else everyone would be experiencing the same problem. It
> seems at this point, the problem may lie somewhere on the server,
> especially as facter locally reports the right value.
>
> Doug.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
"Join us for PuppetConf, September 22nd and 23rd in Portland, OR:
http://bit.ly/puppetconfsig";
--
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.
