On 8/19/2011 4:17 PM, Stefan Pendl wrote:
I actually recommend the first option. Making sure each hosts
gets only one
single profile assigned. You can still apply "default"
profile by specifying
dependencies between profiles.
I second Rainer's advice.
----
The problem is the following section from wpkg-check.log:
Hosts file contains 18 hosts:
'name=adelatorre2','profile-id=default64'
'name=demo7','profile-id=demo'
'name=severett2','profile-id=newdefault64'
'name=DBROOKS','profile-id=dbrooks'
'name=.+','profile-id=default'
'name=rsmart2','profile-id=newdefault64'
'name=jomiles','profile-id=is-staff'
'name=searchroom4','profile-id=searchroom'
'name=DBROOKS','profile-id=dbrooks'
'name=jbaughn','profile-id=default64'
'name=jbaughn2','profile-id=default64'
'name=adelatorre','profile-id=default64'
'name=plieb','profile-id=default64'
'name=checkout1','profile-id=checkout1'
'name=rquinn2','profile-id=default64'
'name=sokolsky','profile-id=is-staff'
'name=morrisey','profile-id=default64'
'name=jgardner2','profile-id=newdefault64'
As you can see the definition "'name=jomiles','profile-id=is-staff'" is located after
"'name=.+','profile-id=default'", which
results in any of the following machines using the default profile.
It seems that you have set up one hosts file for each machine, where it would
be more practical to have one hosts file for each
department or room.
You even have two dbrooks hosts files as it seems, that is really strange.
In your case I would even use only one hosts file, since there are not so much
hosts.
Finally, I have never had a need to use the match-all ".+" pattern.
If we could get some insight on your environment, we will be able to give you
better help.
---
Stefan
WPKG 1.2.1-RC07
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
Top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives>> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users
You are exactly right. I only had the catch all as we had previously had
some pc's that we didn't care to setup proper hostnames as they were
only in the setup bay for a day then out in the field never to return,
or get updates for that matter. The reason I had two for my pc is I was
testing something but the duplicate has been removed. I have solved the
issue I think by removing the default entry and placing it in the
\\management\wpkg\hosts.xml file. But now that we don't really have a
"need" for the default entry I have removed it altogether.
In reply to your second message the host running this is CentOS 5.6
running samba-3.0.33. But now that I have removed the default entry all
seems to be doing well. Thanks to all for the help on this. You guys
totally rock!
Donny B.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users
