Re: [Puppet Users] Augeas and custom lenses?

2017-02-16 Thread otheus uibk
Ah, documented bug: https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/FACT-696 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:48 PM, otheus uibk <otheus.u...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dom, Sorry about resurrecting the old thread. About facts: `facter -p` > (2.4.6) shows puppet facts, but not the ones loaded via pu

Re: [Puppet Users] Augeas and custom lenses?

2017-02-16 Thread otheus uibk
Dom, Sorry about resurrecting the old thread. About facts: `facter -p` (2.4.6) shows puppet facts, but not the ones loaded via puppet modules in /var/lib/puppet/facts.d (unless --external-dir is specified). For that reason, perhaps, we started putting ours in /etc/facter. -- You received this

Re: [Puppet Users] Augeas and custom lenses?

2017-02-15 Thread otheus uibk
Hi Dom, The puppet documentation you references is just slight on details (well, that could be said about lots of projects these days). Does puppet put such lenses in its own directory? Does puppet ensure such lenses override the "default" ones mentioned in the augtool page? All that is

Re: [Puppet Users] Re: mount point directory permissions

2016-09-22 Thread otheus uibk
Chiming in... The old feature request at https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/4815 had it right. This should be a part of the core Mount resource type. Eric's rejection of it was stupid. On most systems, when you mount a volume, the underlying

Re: [Puppet Users] Updating facts for a client in PuppetDB independently from the master

2016-03-27 Thread otheus uibk
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:34:13 PM UTC+1, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > Yeah, it would. > > What I'm looking at doing would be injected as part of the reporting phase > so it would be updated after each client run. > > Not an ideal solution, I would much rather be able to add some extra

Re: [Puppet Users] Updating facts for a client in PuppetDB independently from the master

2016-03-27 Thread otheus uibk
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:34:13 PM UTC+1, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > Yeah, it would. > > What I'm looking at doing would be injected as part of the reporting phase > so it would be updated after each client run. > > Not an ideal solution, I would much rather be able to add some extra