On 9/9/11 9:55 PM, Nick Daly wrote:
Puppet/Chef could do that well, but I'm wary. It seems to operate at too low a level and exerts too strong (too perfect) a control over the system (particularly, the system configs). IIUC, FreedomBoxes would need to be slaves to the source Puppetmaster to be kept in sync.
Not necessarily. You can make Puppet apply manifests from the local filesystem, without a central PuppetMaster server. That's what I do with Vagrant + Puppet for my dev VMs in general.
Of course, 2 won't happen if the puppets aren't pulling updates from the server, but if that's the case, why are you running puppets?
The reason to run Puppet without a server is that you can still check manifests into revision control and maintain server config alongside code.
Also, rewriting the packaging scripts for Puppet or Chef seems like a mighty task.
Actually, one of Puppet's strengths is that it accommodates the packaging and configuration conventions of many platforms (eg. RedHat, Ubuntu, etc).
But, that's part of what I think would be overkill. Puppet handles a lot of deployment scenarios, where a Freedombox on a DreamPlug would probably be better served by preseeding and other Debian-specific tech.
I'd much rather load up a DreamPlug with a pre-configured filesystem image, than run Puppet to install packages & configure from scratch.
-- [email protected] http://decafbad.com {web,mad,computer} scientist _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
