Actualy, this is not much different to what Ruby gems are doing when
the have a native part or native bindings. It's a way to create platform
independent packages.
-- Claus
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 10:45 -0500, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> > On 10/03/10 8:02 PM, Ohad Levy wrote:
> >> I'm not saying its a
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 12:59 -0500, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> It could be said that time saved now does not mean time saved later.
>
Especially if you are "adding/removing files at a furious rate", this
will lead to conflicts sooner or later, and it will be highly
appreciated if you can track down
Hello!
So, you want to distribute all the package contents using puppet? Can't
you use yum+RPM or any other packaging system to distribute your
binaries, and use puppet to trigger the installation?
> Given the dynamic nature of the packages (new files are added/removed
> constantly)
That's unus
Oh, I think that's a hit. I just added my comments and reopened that
issue.
Regards,
Claus
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 16:41 +0100, Peter Meier wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi
>
> >> Claus, this is a huge bug if you've confirmed it.
> >
> > So, this behaviour is not
iour for 0.25.4?
Regards,
Claus
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 17:45 -0800, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Claus Divossen
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> Did both nodes actually show the same value for 'certname' however?
> >> And that&#x
te:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Claus Divossen
> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > The FAQ contains an entry about autosigning:
> >
> > http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#why-shouldn-t-i-use-autosign-for-all-my-clients
> >
Hello!
The FAQ contains an entry about autosigning:
http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#why-shouldn-t-i-use-autosign-for-all-my-clients
It says:
> The certificate itself is stored, so two nodes could not connect with
the same CN
I tried this (using 0.25.4), an
