On Friday, April 19, 2013 12:06:53 PM UTC-5, Ken Coar wrote: > > On Friday, April 19, 2013 5:46:37 AM UTC-4, David Schmitt wrote: > >> >> Is there any reason to use a puppet as source? You can put that on an >> NFS share too and reference it by path. Or clone a git repo. >> > > Simplicity. Keeping everything in the puppet milieu, which is already > set up. Don't want to introduce new mechanisms and dependencies > rather than making use of what's already there. > >
Well, no. The Puppet agent does not function as a file server, so you're not proposing to make use of anything that's already there. And, even if the agent could provide file services, you're still talking about setting up an additional server. More importantly, you are proposing a dramatic complication of the management architecture, no matter how you implement it. You are suggesting that the master delegate authority over (some) files and their contents to another principal under different administrative control. The specifics of how that other principal fulfills that responsibility pale in comparison with the fact that the master is performing such delegation in the first place. Were it me, I would prefer to make the processes as distinct as possible so as to minimize confusion of responsibilities. John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
