> From: David Lang [mailto:da...@lang.hm]
>
> You
> really
> do want to know when a set of changes to different files are related. And the
> ability to pull the history to a different system is quite handy.
For now, I'm using rsnapshot. I configured a separate config file, configured
to retain
David Lang wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Charles Polisher wrote:
>
> > Phil Pennock wrote:
> >> Charles Polisher wrote:
> >>> There's an interesting blog post on this -
> >>> http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments
> >>> which observes that with etckeeper &
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Close
Ned Harvey wrote:
Question is: What do you use to version control permission sensitive
files?
What's the matter with the old tried-and-tru
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
On 2013-04-21 09:57, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Although I'm surprised it doesn't have any comment capability.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I definitely value the
commit-style nature of git as a version-tracking mechanism, where
rdiff
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Charles Polisher wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
Charles Polisher wrote:
There's an interesting blog post on this -
http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments
which observes that with etckeeper & friends you'll be fighting
your package managem
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
On Apr 20, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Graham Dunn wrote:
*From: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
*Sent: *Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:29 AM
*To: *tech@lists.lopsa.org
*Reply To: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
*Subject: *[lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Skylar Thompson wrote:
> Oooh, does this mean they're getting rid of Satellite? As a current Satellite
> user, I can't say I'm surprised. We've been wanting to get off Satellite for
> years, but the amount of time and money we waste on keeping it running have
> so
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013, Adam Moskowitz wrote:
Actually, both Puppet and Chef will let you manage as much or as
little of a system as you want; there's no need to manage the whole
system. Want just a few files in /etc? No problem. As you find more
files you care about, you can add them one at a ti
> From: Tom Limoncelli [mailto:t...@whatexit.org]
>
> The real issue here is that we manage machines wrong. The fact that
> sysadmins say things like, "if I had more than a few machines I'd set
> up Puppet/Chef/CfEngine" should be considered a bug.
Thanks everyone for your help. Fact is, I'm a c
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Will Dennis wrote:
> Didn't you have a relatively DevOps type of job at Google, Tom?
Only in that Google SRE embodied DevOps principles before they were
called DevOps. ...but, again, I can't take credit for inventing any of
that.
> You may be
> the closest thing
riginal Message-
From: Tom Limoncelli [t...@whatexit.org]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 06:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Will Dennis
Cc: unix_fan; t...@lopsa.org
Subject: Re: [lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission sensitive files
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Will Dennis wrote:
> All w
On 04/22/2013 12:49 PM, Matthew Barr wrote:
On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
I've been waiting for at least a decade now for a Linux distribution to pick
one of the CMs out there and just
start supporting using said CM as the default way to manage their distribution.
It see
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Will Dennis wrote:
> All we need is “#devops” and Tom’s name at the end… T-shirts should be
> issued J
I don't know what Will means. I'm not the poster boy for DevOps. I
think it's great but I think I'm an innovator in that area. (By the
way... some of the actu
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Mark McCullough wrote:
>
> On 2013 Apr 22, at 16:36 , Brian Mathis wrote:
> > Say what you will about them, but Microsoft realized this was a problem
> with INI files a long time ago and migrated to the registry. You may
> scoff, and one could say that early *impl
On 2013 Apr 22, at 16:36 , Brian Mathis wrote:
> Say what you will about them, but Microsoft realized this was a problem with
> INI files a long time ago and migrated to the registry. You may scoff, and
> one could say that early *implementations* of the registry left something to
> be desire
Another problem with vendor support of CM systems is that as a sysadmin,
I'd probably rather use Puppet to manage all of my Red Hat, Ubuntu, and
Solaris machines, rather than using Puppet for Red Hat, Chef for Ubuntu,
and Cfengine for Solaris.
That's not an obstacle to vendors picking a default CM
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>
> I've been waiting for at least a decade now for a Linux distribution to
> pick one of the CMs out there and just
> start supporting using said CM as the default way to manage their
> distribution. It seems like the commercial distribution
On 2013-04-22 20:49, Matthew Barr wrote:
Well, RH is starting to focus on Puppet
I also noticed the minimal install of SLES includes Puppet.
regards,
oliver.
___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> I've been waiting for at least a decade now for a Linux distribution to pick
> one of the CMs out there and just
> start supporting using said CM as the default way to manage their
> distribution. It seems like the commercial distributions
>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
>
>
> The real issue here is that we manage machines wrong. The fact that
> sysadmins say things like, "if I had more than a few machines I'd set
> up Puppet/Chef/CfEngine" shou
All we need is "#devops" and Tom's name at the end... T-shirts should be
issued J
From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
On Behalf Of unix_fan
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:39 PM
Cc: t...@lopsa.org
Subject: Re: [lopsa-tech] Version control
>
>
Will Dennis writes:
Tom Limoncelli writes:
>[snip]
>QOTD:
>"Editing a file in /etc directly 'by hand' should be an obscure art done
>to teach internals or to scare children on Halloween."
>
>+1
Love ya, Tom. :-)
> The real issue here is that we manage machines wrong. The fact that
> sysadmins say things like, "if I had more than a few machines I'd set
> up Puppet/Chef/CfEngine" should be considered a bug. We should be
> using configuration management as the default. Everything should be
> done via CM.
April 22, 2013 10:36 AM
To: Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
Cc: t...@lopsa.org
Subject: Re: [lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission sensitive files
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
wrote:
>> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org
>> [mailto:tech-boun...@lists
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
wrote:
>> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
>> On Behalf Of Dave Close
>>
>> Ned Harvey wrote:
>>
>> >Question is: What do you use to version control permission sensitive
>> >files?
>>
>> What's th
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave Close
>
> Ned Harvey wrote:
>
> >Question is: What do you use to version control permission sensitive
> >files?
>
> What's the matter with the old tried-and-true RCS? It keeps both
> permissions and t
Ned Harvey wrote:
>Question is: What do you use to version control permission sensitive
>files?
What's the matter with the old tried-and-true RCS? It keeps both
permissions and time stamps just fine.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Irvine CA "Whenever you have a secret,
d...@compata.com, +1 71
ENH> Config management is great, if you're building new systems, and
ENH> especially if you're building and removing a lot of systems from
ENH> production on a regular basis, and you own it all from scratch. Not
ENH> great if you inherited a small number of undocumented customer facing
ENH> servers
Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
> I'm really not interested in puppet or chef for this purpose, for about
> a zillion reasons. Here's the simplest most important one:
>
> Config management is great, if you're building new systems, and especially
> if you're building and removing a lot of systems
On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
wrote:
> Yes, of course, the plan is to build a new standard, including all the
> documentation, and replace the existing servers. But if you seriously have
> only 1-3 servers to maintain, it's not worth building another server to be
> t
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Brian Atkisson
>
> Manage the files you care about with puppet, keeping the modules in a git
> repo. If you are concerned about files changing that aren't managed with
> puppet, watch them with aide.
I'm re
Manage the files you care about with puppet, keeping the modules in a git
repo. If you are concerned about files changing that aren't managed with
puppet, watch them with aide.
On Apr 20, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Singer Wang wrote:
Chef
On Apr 20, 2013 12:00 PM, "Yves Dorfsman" wrote:
> On 2013-04-
On 2013-04-21 10:34, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
rdiff-backup is more well suited for the former description you've described,
although it can certainly be used in the latter. Because rdiff-backup
maintains history indefinitely (unless otherwise instructed) you probably don't
want to r
On Apr 21, 2013, at 08:16 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)" wrote:> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org] > On Behalf Of Yves Dorfsman > > What did this give you that an rdiff-backup wouldn't? I've never used rdiff-backup before. [snip] Thanks for the suggestion.
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Yves Dorfsman
>
> git and friends:
> capture changes when a human thinks changes were made and should be
> recorded.
> Fewer revisions, easy to search, every revision is meaningful.
> You will miss every non-
On 2013-04-21 09:57, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Although I'm surprised it doesn't have any comment capability.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I definitely value the
commit-style nature of git as a version-tracking mechanism, where rdiff-backup
(or duplicity) just copies filesystem
> From: Brad Beyenhof [mailto:bbeyen...@icloud.com]
>
> At $PREVIOUSJOB, I wrote a Perl frontend for rdiff-backup that I kicked off
> nightly via cron to backup shared /home (NFS- and samba-mounted on
> clients) and a few other important data locations. It was a lifesaver when
> clobbered data nee
On Apr 20, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
>
> If your package management system insists on owning all files in /etc/
> and complaining if you choose to change the state of some them by
> rolling back a change, then your package management system is broken.
>
> It's acceptable for package
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Yves Dorfsman
>
> What did this give you that an rdiff-backup wouldn't?
I've never used rdiff-backup before.
Now that I'm reading the manual, it's definitely worth investigating. Looks
like it has a lot
On 2013-04-20 22:35, Brian Mathis wrote:
We wound up writing our own tool that creates a copy of every file we want to
watch in a separate location, and keeps that location under revision control.
A script runs every night and emails out the diffs before auto-committing them
to the local repo.
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Brian Mathis
>
> I attempted this myself a few years ago, and also ran into a lot of
> problems. One of the biggest problems is SVN itself -- it dumps .svn
> directories and internal files all over the place
I attempted this myself a few years ago, and also ran into a lot of
problems. One of the biggest problems is SVN itself -- it dumps .svn
directories and internal files all over the place, which wreaked havoc on
directories like modprobe.d which didn't properly ignore dot files. You'd
probably hav
> Question is: What do you use to version control permission sensitive
files? Subversion doesn't give a damn about permissions, so even after I
clean up this mess, I think I should probably
> avoid it.
We use Puppet to make sure managed files have proper ownership, permissions
and relevant servi
Phil Pennock wrote:
> Charles Polisher wrote:
> > There's an interesting blog post on this -
> > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments
> > which observes that with etckeeper & friends you'll be fighting
> > your package management system. Some good point/coun
On 2013-04-20 at 16:17 -0700, Charles Polisher wrote:
> There's an interesting blog post on this -
> http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments
> which observes that with etckeeper & friends you'll be fighting
> your package management system. Some good point/coun
Phil Pennock wrote:
> Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
> > I recently thought it would be a good idea to version control the /etc
> > directory. Using subversion, I added and committed ... and all hell
> > broke loose.
>
> Worse than that: there's a contrib wrapper for svn which claims to add
>
On 2013-04-20 at 13:28 +, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
> I recently thought it would be a good idea to version control the /etc
> directory. Using subversion, I added and committed ... and all hell
> broke loose.
Worse than that: there's a contrib wrapper for svn which claims to add
per
On Apr 20, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Graham Dunn wrote:
>> *From: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
>> *Sent: *Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:29 AM
>> *To: *tech@lists.lopsa.org
>> *Reply To: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
>> *Subject: *[lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission sens
Chef
On Apr 20, 2013 12:00 PM, "Yves Dorfsman" wrote:
> On 2013-04-20 07:45, Ali Sajid Imami wrote:
>
>> At $WORK, we tend to use a private git repository, and a custom script. We
>> clone the directory to anywhere we like, commit our changes, then push it
>> to
>> github. Then a custom script, p
On 2013-04-20 07:45, Ali Sajid Imami wrote:
At $WORK, we tend to use a private git repository, and a custom script. We
clone the directory to anywhere we like, commit our changes, then push it to
github. Then a custom script, pulls all the stuff down and a puppet run puts
the files in their appro
PM, Graham Dunn wrote:
> Etckeeper
>
> *From: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
> *Sent: *Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:29 AM
> *To: *tech@lists.lopsa.org
> *Reply To: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
> *Subject: *[lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission sensitive files
>
> I r
Etckeeper
*From: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
*Sent: *Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:29 AM
*To: *tech@lists.lopsa.org
*Reply To: *Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
*Subject: *[lopsa-tech] Version controlling permission sensitive files
I recently thought it would be a good idea to version control the
I recently thought it would be a good idea to version control the /etc
directory. Using subversion, I added and committed ... and all hell broke
loose.
It seems, for some god unforsaken reason, during a commit, svn will copy (or
link?) the file being committed, read the temp copy, and then mo
53 matches
Mail list logo
