Other than local configs for each system, were there any other issues. For our application, we mostly use RHEL with only two Solaris systems (that will be going away).
Doing it this way will solve the distribution versioning and update "problem" for which there is no one solution (Enterprise version similarly). On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and > mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share > "/opt/csw" > Seems to work fine so far. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an > > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across > > the board. > > > Is there any reason why this couldn't be done with Puppet? For > > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and > > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from > > NFS. > > > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn't we just > > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby > > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and > > x86_64. > > > Thoughts? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Puppet Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
