Re: [Puppet Users] Feature 4815: Allow Mount to create a mount point and set the under lying permission?
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Stefan Schulte
stefan.schu...@taunusstein.net wrote:
You could create the mountpoint with an exec resource. Like
define mymount (.) {
exec { create_${name}:
command = /bin/mkdir -m 0755 ${name},
creates = $name,
}
mount { $name:
...
require = Exec[create_${name}],
}
}
You can now use a file resource to set e.g. owner and group on the
mounted path.
Ah, yes that would work well, at least in the short term.
--
Jeff Ollie
--
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.
[Puppet Users] Feature 4815: Allow Mount to create a mount point and set the under lying permission?
Having this feature would be very useful to me... Other than doing the work myself, is there any hope of getting this any time soon? -- Jeff Ollie -- 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.
Re: [Puppet Users] Feature 4815: Allow Mount to create a mount point and set the under lying permission?
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Gibbins a...@adamgibbins.com wrote: On 6 October 2011 18:15, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote: Having this feature would be very useful to me... Other than doing the work myself, is there any hope of getting this any time soon? This doesn't really seem the work of a provider, but rather a define. Could you not just wrap a file block and a mount inside a define? I think that the problem with that is that you are dealing with two different directories that have the same name. There's the original directory that is used as a mount point and then there's the directory that is mounted on top of that. AFAIK puppet can't deal with that situation using only a define. -- Jeff Ollie -- 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.
Re: [Puppet Users] Re: CPAN package provider?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:33 AM, jcbollinger john.bollin...@stjude.org wrote: On Sep 27, 11:13 am, Aaron Grewell aaron.grew...@gmail.com wrote: We're not using CPAN. Modules are installed as RPMs in our environment. As it should be on an RPM-based distro. Yes, I wish it could be so... Unfortunately the one system that I need this for is running cPanel on a CentOS 5 system. cPanel installs its own custom Perl (as well as many other packages, including Ruby so I have to install Puppet and Facter via GEM rather than RPMs). I'm trying to get munin installed on this system so that I can monitor the system. Since cPanel installed a custom Perl the CentOS Perl module RPMs won't install. I strongly recommend installing software only via the system's native package manager. If you violate that by installing Perl itself some other way (e.g. manually), then anything goes for that Perl installation (or Ruby, Python, ...), but if you are using the system's Perl then you should use the system's Perl packages. If you need Perl modules not available pre-packaged then package them yourself; it's not that hard, especially if they are already available from CPAN. Doing otherwise introduces a significant risk of incompatibilities arising and even your Perl modules being mangled, plus it makes management more than twice as hard. I totally agree, but since I can't get rid of cPanel and I don't want to go to the trouble of building RPMs for just one system I'm kinda stuck doing it the wrong way. -- Jeff Ollie -- 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.
[Puppet Users] CPAN package provider?
Google searches don't turn up anything very promising in terms of a Puppet CPAN package provider. What are people using to manage Perl modules installed through CPAN? -- Jeff Ollie -- 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.
[Puppet Users] Mongrel 2 as a front end for Puppet?
Has anyone looked at using Mongrel 2 (http://mongrel2.org/) as a front end for Puppet? I currently have my Puppet master running under Passenger but I'm always curious about the new kid on the block. What intrigues me about Mongrel 2 is that it uses ZeroMQ to separate the front end from the back ends. I've looked at the problem briefly but I'm a rails/rack/passenger newbie so I'm not sure what all I need to do. -- Jeff Ollie -- 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.
