its actually trigger by puppet, puppet keeps track on the mtime of the rpm
db file, each time it changes, it notify an exec which runs the script.
cheers,
Ohad
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:19 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:13:44 -0600, James Cammarata wrote:
> > On Fri, 29
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:13:44 -0600, James Cammarata wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:47:05 +0800, Ohad Levy wrote:
>> after a very long discussion about this topic in the past, we internally
>> decided to have a simple script which checks the yum repo for 32bit
>> versions
>> when the 64bit versi
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:47:05 +0800, Ohad Levy wrote:
> after a very long discussion about this topic in the past, we internally
> decided to have a simple script which checks the yum repo for 32bit
> versions
> when the 64bit version exists.
>
> e.g. if you did
> package{"libacl": ensure => inst
after a very long discussion about this topic in the past, we internally
decided to have a simple script which checks the yum repo for 32bit versions
when the 64bit version exists.
e.g. if you did
package{"libacl": ensure => installed}
then the script will install the 32bit version of the same pa
On Jan 28, 2010, at 10:08 AM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:42:12 -0600, Carl Caum wrote:
>> Make extra sure that's true. I found it won't give you an error but the
>> package still won't always be installed.
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:05 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:42:12 -0600, Carl Caum wrote:
> Make extra sure that's true. I found it won't give you an error but the
> package still won't always be installed.
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:05 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:50:41 -0600, Carl Caum
>> wrote:
Make extra sure that's true. I found it won't give you an error but the
package still won't always be installed.
On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:05 PM, James Cammarata wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:50:41 -0600, Carl Caum wrote:
>> Unfortunately even the yum provider sucks at this too. It may hav
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:50:41 -0600, Carl Caum wrote:
> Unfortunately even the yum provider sucks at this too. It may have been
> fixed recently, but I don't think so since the problem exists in how rpm
> reports back queries for available packages. I have to solve this with
an
> exec. . You co
Unfortunately even the yum provider sucks at this too. It may have been fixed
recently, but I don't think so since the problem exists in how rpm reports back
queries for available packages. I have to solve this with an exec. . You
could do something similar to:
exec {"install libacl.i386":
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:07:21 -0800 (PST), James wrote:
> I'm having an issue using package resources on RHEL 4 systems using
> up2date with RHN. I need to ensure that libacl.i386 is installed on a
> x86_64 system, however the up2date provider does not seem to like the
> yum syntax for specifying
10 matches
Mail list logo
