Issue #7911 has been updated by Steven Seed.
Sounds reasonable to me. On Jan 11, 2013 8:17 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Issue #7911 has been updated by John Julien. > > > What are people’s thoughts on adding the parameter “forcelocal => > true/false (default: false)” to the groupadd and useradd providers? If the > group or user exists in LDAP but are not in /etc/passwd or /etc/group then > a local account will still get created. > ------------------------------ > Bug #7911: Can't handle local users in LDAP > environment<https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7911#change-81020> > > - Author: Rob Braden > - Status: Accepted > - Priority: Normal > - Assignee: > - Category: > - Target version: 3.x > - Affected Puppet version: > - Keywords: > - Branch: > > Our environment (mostly RHEL) uses LDAP for user and group administration. > Unfortunately, we have some cases where (broken) software insists on local > users and groups. I’m guessing it’s checking the files directly instead of > using the proper system calls. > > Puppet won’t create the user locally, as it sees the user as already > existing. RHEL does have local versions of the user and group management > commands (luseradd, lusermod, etc). Would there be any implications to > adding a ‘local’ provider for the user type that adds support for managing > local users and groups in an environment where most accounts are managed > remotely? > ------------------------------ > > 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 > ---------------------------------------- Bug #7911: Can't handle local users in LDAP environment https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7911#change-81021 Author: Rob Braden Status: Accepted Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: Target version: 3.x Affected Puppet version: Keywords: Branch: Our environment (mostly RHEL) uses LDAP for user and group administration. Unfortunately, we have some cases where (broken) software insists on local users and groups. I'm guessing it's checking the files directly instead of using the proper system calls. Puppet won't create the user locally, as it sees the user as already existing. RHEL does have local versions of the user and group management commands (luseradd, lusermod, etc). Would there be any implications to adding a 'local' provider for the user type that adds support for managing local users and groups in an environment where most accounts are managed remotely? -- 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.
