Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 04/06/2011 09:36 AM, Mark Foster wrote: On 03/31/2011 05:05 PM, Mathias Gug wrote: Could you clarify what behavior are you referring to? The fact that puppet doesn't start after the package is installed? Bingo! It requires manual intervention (editing the /etc/default/puppet file). The irony is that it could be fixed via puppet if it puppet was actually running. We ended up using a --exec from vmbuilder to change the option to YES in /etc/default/puppet. Also turned on auto signing of keys on the puppet master. Fire up a new VM and puppet kicks off to complete configuration. So the use case exists for autostart of the puppet agent, auto provisioning of newly created VM's, potential for elastic cloud expansion. Sorry for the old thread reply. - cameron -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 6 April 2011 17:36, Mark Foster m...@foster.cc wrote: It requires manual intervention (editing the /etc/default/puppet file). The irony is that it could be fixed via puppet if it puppet was actually running. You might want to first install chef to handle that :-) You still have to install the client, in certain case you might want to push a certain base config. So enabling the service at instal time shouldn't be that big a deal. EIther way, you have to start somewhere before puppet kicks in. Besdides, not everybody want the puppet client running by default. Because of e.g. memory problems, some people (used to) run it from cron, not as a daemon - just giving a counter example. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Serge van Ginderachter -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 04/06/2011 09:03 AM, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: On 6 April 2011 17:36, Mark Foster m...@foster.cc wrote: It requires manual intervention (editing the /etc/default/puppet file). The irony is that it could be fixed via puppet if it puppet was actually running. You might want to first install chef to handle that :-) This thread is not about chef. You still have to install the client, in certain case you might want to push a certain base config. So enabling the service at instal time shouldn't be that big a deal. EIther way, you have to start somewhere before puppet kicks in. preseed and other methods make it easy to install packages. Editing a config file is a bit more complex. The behavior in Hardy LTS was that you installed puppet and it (puppetd) would run. So this change in behavior qualifies as a regression. Besdides, not everybody want the puppet client running by default. Because of e.g. memory problems, some people (used to) run it from cron, not as a daemon - just giving a counter example. I'm sure a _majority_ of users do want it to run by default. Certainly that's what the Hardy users got thus expected. If some users don't want it (puppetd) to run in which case they should not install the puppet package at all, but just puppet-common. -- Mark D. Foster m...@foster.cc http://mark.foster.cc/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@ubuntu.com wrote: Excerpts from Mark Foster's message of Thu Mar 31 14:52:00 -0700 2011: On 03/31/2011 10:36 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) BTW this behavior is annoying, it should just rely on the normal methods i.e. update-rc.d puppet defaults Agreed. Does anybody know why puppet does this? What conflicts are we talking about? Could you clarify what behavior are you referring to? The fact that puppet doesn't start after the package is installed? -- Mathias -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 03/30/2011 05:04 PM, Etienne Goyer wrote: On 11-03-30 10:53 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Ubuntu server should be offering better Puppet integration. This includes the following: * Making it really easy to deploy a puppet master server. * Possible d-i integration * Pre-canned puppet reciepes It's been an ongoing topic for while. I think we really have the opportunity to differentiate Ubuntu here. In particular, preseedable d-i integration would make Ubuntu deployment a completely hands-off operation. Again, count me in for that one! Isn't this already achievable by preseding a cloud-init script which then does the puppet magic? Nick signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:59:17 -1000 Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: On 03/30/2011 04:53 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Hi, Ubuntu server should be offering better Puppet integration. This includes the following: * Making it really easy to deploy a puppet master server. * Possible d-i integration * Pre-canned puppet reciepes Regards chuck To play a little bit of devils advocate, what is wrong with the current method? Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) Paul Nothing is wrong with the current method per se. My view is that it just provides the basics to the users. With Ubuntu orchestra as said before we are trying to offer more than what we currently offer, which is the basics. Regards chuck -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 03/31/2011 10:36 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) BTW this behavior is annoying, it should just rely on the normal methods i.e. update-rc.d puppet defaults -- Mark D. Foster m...@foster.cc http://mark.foster.cc/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 03/31/2011 11:52 AM, Mark Foster wrote: On 03/31/2011 10:36 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) BTW this behavior is annoying, it should just rely on the normal methods i.e. update-rc.d puppet defaults That may be the normal method, but it's not the Ubuntu (debian?) way, which is to automatically do that on install, and start the application up. Personally I find that an annoying default, if for example, have to install an FTP server on a machine I don't want it starting up until I've had a chance to configure it first. Paul -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
Excerpts from Mark Foster's message of Thu Mar 31 14:52:00 -0700 2011: On 03/31/2011 10:36 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) BTW this behavior is annoying, it should just rely on the normal methods i.e. update-rc.d puppet defaults Agreed. Does anybody know why puppet does this? What conflicts are we talking about? -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
[Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
Hi, Ubuntu server should be offering better Puppet integration. This includes the following: * Making it really easy to deploy a puppet master server. * Possible d-i integration * Pre-canned puppet reciepes Regards chuck -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 11-03-30 10:53 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Ubuntu server should be offering better Puppet integration. This includes the following: * Making it really easy to deploy a puppet master server. * Possible d-i integration * Pre-canned puppet reciepes It's been an ongoing topic for while. I think we really have the opportunity to differentiate Ubuntu here. In particular, preseedable d-i integration would make Ubuntu deployment a completely hands-off operation. Again, count me in for that one! -- Etienne Goyer Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd Ubuntu Certified Instructor -LPIC-3 ~= Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings =~ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:10:47AM -0400, Douglas Stanley wrote: It's been an ongoing topic for while. I think we really have the opportunity to differentiate Ubuntu here. In particular, preseedable d-i integration would make Ubuntu deployment a completely hands-off operation. Again, count me in for that one! I'd also like to see this, as well as some possible pre-canned recipes/manifests. Even if they were just in an extra docs package, or on a dedicated wiki section or something like that. Doug I've been thinking about this, too. It would be great if users who are creating a new puppet-centric infrastructure can start by creating a puppet master node with the puppetmaster + new modules package. The modules package could contain pre-written modules for common services that define and take care of installation, configuration, management, etc. If done correctly, the entire environment could be in-place and waiting before any additional systems are booted. Another option would be to have additional puppet-* or puppetmasterd-module-* packages, each containing a module for a specific service or need. Initially it felt like Puppet was still so new that it was difficult to find defined best-practices, but with the publication of the Puppet Style Guide ( http://www.puppetlabs.com/blog/a-question-of-style/ ) it seems it wouldn't be too hard to develop and ship manifests and modules that meet the standards. --- Adam Gandelman -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Puppet Integration
On 03/30/2011 04:53 AM, Chuck Short wrote: Hi, Ubuntu server should be offering better Puppet integration. This includes the following: * Making it really easy to deploy a puppet master server. * Possible d-i integration * Pre-canned puppet reciepes Regards chuck To play a little bit of devils advocate, what is wrong with the current method? Puppet installs over apt-get and takes editing a quick /etc/default/puppet file to say YES to enable it (rather than risk conflicts) Paul -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
