Since my other thread (http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/
browse_thread/thread/51f014a558b340a4?hl=en) has lots of data and no
replies, I wanted to ask the questions directly: Does the "mtime"
checksum work correctly for others? Or does it update files
unnecessarily?
--~--~-~--~-
If I understand ya, you probably want:
Package { provider => 'yum' }
To set the defaults for all packages.
On 29/10/2008, at 8:37 AM, "Tiago Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I would like to configure my puppet to use "yum" instead
> "up2date" (default RHEL4).
>
> How can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiago Cruz wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I would like to configure my puppet to use "yum" instead "up2date"
> (default RHEL4).
>
> How can I do this? :)
http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/TypeReference#package
See the provider attribute.
Regard
Hello guys,
I would like to configure my puppet to use "yum" instead "up2date" (default
RHEL4).
How can I do this? :)
Thanks!
--
Tiago Cruz
Linux User #282636
Mandriva Conectiva PRO Certified Linux Instructor
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message beca
Actually I am also seeing non-recursive normal files that are replaced
every time I run puppetd on the client. One example is below. Am I
doing something wrong? I've used 'stat' to ensure the file on the
puppetmaster server is not actually changing between runs.
Declaration:
file { "/etc/skel/.b
On Oct 28, 3:53 am, "Ohad Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after testing a few clients, I've seen negative performance change:
>
> puppetd[25489]: Finished catalog run in 25.94 seconds
> puppetd[26223]: Finished catalog run in 25.78 seconds
> puppetd[26981]: Finished catalog run in 26.13 se
after testing a few clients, I've seen negative performance change:
puppetd[25489]: Finished catalog run in 25.94 seconds
puppetd[26223]: Finished catalog run in 25.78 seconds
puppetd[26981]: Finished catalog run in 26.13 seconds
puppetd[27713]: Finished catalog run in 27.21 seconds
puppetd[2
Hmm... versions just work with pkg-get ;) give it a try
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Matt McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that -- I'll take a proper look later.
>
> Is there any way to do versionable packages on Solaris? I could've sworn
> the blastwave stuff could do it, bu
Hi,
As I'm considering upgrading from 24-4 to 24-6, my initial tests did not
show up any problems with 24-6 server and 24-4 client.
Does anyone knows of any problem that 24-6 server can not provide
configuration to 24-4 clients?
it would make life a bit easier if I could have a transition period.
