On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:13:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Silvio - [email protected] wrote: > > > > I'm far from being an expert in Puppet, but I do have a SheevaPlug > > configured > > by Puppet and it runs smoothly. > > > > Puppet usually fills the gap between the configuration shipped in a package > > and > > the one needed by the user/admin. The more a package config has a desired > > configuration, the less puppet is needed for that purpose. > > > > -- > > Silvio > > Could you provide more information about how you used Puppet to > configure your SheevaPlug?
Since nobody else has mentioned it yet: cfengine3 (it has fewer dependencies than Puppet, and I'd guess Chef, and a much smaller memory footprint) Having said that, I'm with Jonas and his assertion that effort would generally be more efficiently spent if devoted to making preseeding/debconf scripting more flexible for any package where you're being tempted to use any of these for editing config files. Of course, there's nothing wrong with an individual sysadmin automating actions that they would otherwise be forced to perform by hand, but if we're making decisions about default behaviour for all FBs, then that should be implemented by the relevant packages themselves. Using any of Puppet/Chef/cfengine to achieve the same effect is effectively just an attempt to side-step the edict against one package modifying the conffiles of another (which would be another way of doing this) -- while that edict is sometimes inconvenient, it's there for good reason so one should be very cautious before ignoring it. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
pgpYTIqmh3bJN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
