I have scaned but I'm not sure that I understand this discussion. Can you spell out the conclusions for me?
M On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:21 -0800, Wil Cooley wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:59 -0800, David Masterson wrote: > > > The former -- but it won't work if you're doing checksum based copying. I > > suppose you could simplify this by having update.conf define a class if a > > file exists and then only do copying if the class is not present. > > Yes, and I use checksum almost exclusively. I could, of course, use > 'IfFileExists(foo.lock)' to define a class (or whatever the function > name is; I forget) and then only update if that class is not defined. > The problem is that I'd need to do such a thing for EVERY file, which > would not only be tedious to implement, it wouldn't be possible for > recursive directory copies. Now that I think about it, however, it > might be doable to implement a host-wide lock with minimal changes to my > existing configuration. > > > The idea is to temporarily tell cfagent to not do an update from the > > master while you're making local modifications. > > Right. And my opinion, and what I am asking Mark to consider, is that a > simple tool and a few changes in the existing code to check for and > report the locks would be better than increasing the complexity of > current configurations. > > > As to the latter, that entails running cfservd locally and have the master > > copy changed files back. It could then alert you to the changes and allow > > you to check them into your repository. > > Yeah, I know it can be done like that, but my wish is for something > bigger. > > Wil > _______________________________________________ > Help-cfengine mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
