Issue #2847 has been updated by Krzysztof Wilczynski.

Hi Ken,

> So I like the idea of an exclusion list configuration file, but we would want 
> to be wary of introducing configuration files without a good generic design. 
> Configuration files for facter have been raised off and on and we're always 
> looking for use-cases to build up. We've raised this generic ticket to aid 
> with the discussion: #11449. 

I do want to see the idea of facts having per-fact configuration file too, 
especially with new facts caching framework. I believe it would then make 
Facter more complete. Said that, there is nothing I can do at this point in 
time since such functionality is simply not present in Facter, therefore having 
a hard-coded (which is always bad, yes) list of things whether they are: file 
systems, devices types, etc ... you name it; was the only feasible way to go.

> As far as Solaris support - that is very awesome, thanks very much. Hold on 
> to that thought - lets at least get the Linux one in since there are still 
> design discussions going on. Perhaps we can raise a second ticket and link it 
> to this one for housekeeping purposes - (unless mkincaid wants to incorporate 
> it into his patchset now of course).

People over process, Ken :-) Please, I am begging you! :)

> Anyway onto the point of exclusion lists ... (and this I'm looking for your 
> points as well KW). Is there any reason why we shouldn't just allow the user 
> of the fact to do the exclusion at runtime instead? ie. pass through all 
> mount device types and let people filter in puppet code (ie. with a function 
> or something). I think this is the main topic of contention at the moment 
> that is blocking this ticket so I'd be interested in some objective views and 
> points on this so we can push past this, as this ticket seems to be going on 
> forever :-).

I believe that there is nothing wrong with this fact per se. There are already 
a numerous people using it whom have taken it straight from my github. 
Therefore, the very reason why this ticket is going forever lies somewhere else 
(yes, I am guilty of not having the time in most cases; my day job stands in 
the way somewhat, but that is not the main reason for it) :-(

About allowing people to filter for themselves. Look at my comment 
[here](https://github.com/puppetlabs/facter/pull/42/files#r323380). There is 
also this old problem of limited number of facts and data they expose that 
Facter can use (send over)  as the length of parameters for GET request is not 
infinite unless this was solved already (citation needed), therefore sending 
everything may not be feasible and/or a good idea at all.

KW
----------------------------------------
Feature #2847: mountpoint fact
https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2847

Author: anarcat -
Status: In Topic Branch Pending Review
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Michael Kincaid
Category: library
Target version: 1.7.x
Keywords: mounts, devices
Branch: 
Affected Facter version: 


I have implemented, based on work by the Debian's Sysadmin team, a fact that 
allows listing of the mountpoints (and associated devices). I have attached the 
code for the fact, which is called "mountpoints" but also exports "devices".

I have requested and got approval from the original author (Stephen Gran, which 
code can still be seen here: 
http://git.debian.org/?p=mirror/dsa-puppet.git;a=blob;f=facts/mounts.rb;hb=HEAD)
 before contacting you. To quote him:

"git blame indicates that all the current code in the mounts fact is mine, so 
I'm happy to license it under the GPL (of any verson, as that is apparently the 
puppet license, at first glance) for purposes of pushing it upstream.  OTOH, it 
is about 20 lines of fairly trivial code, so I'm not sure copyright is even an 
issue."

Apparently, his original code was relying on the presence of the "Filesystem" 
Ruby library, which may not be desirable in this case, which is why I 
implemented a linux workaround. It's my first fact ever, so I'm very curious to 
see if I have done this properly or if there are possible improvements to the 
code. I know comments could be good... 

My working copy of the code is also available through git: 
http://git.koumbit.net/?p=puppet/modules/common.git;a=blob;f=plugins/facter/mountpoints.rb;hb=HEAD

Thanks,

A.


-- 
You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, 
or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here: 
http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Bugs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.

Reply via email to