> -----Original Message-----
> From: puppet-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:puppet-
> us...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James Turnbull
> Sent: 29 January 2009 21:55
> To: puppet-users@googlegroups.com; puppet-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Puppet Users] Facter - the future - your input needed
>
> Hi all
>
> We're currently looking at the next release of Facter and the future
> direction of the tool. I'd like to try and prompt some discussions on
> facter and what people want from it.
My 2 cents:
As I'm not great at ruby, I find writing facts and distributing them to do a
really simple thing can be a bit painful. Along these lines what about:
1) The option to point facter at a directory and then all the scripts in the
directory are simply facts (say, factname is scriptname and value is output of
script). A bit messy but very simple.
2) If using namespaces can we expose the boxes local snmp tree via facter?
There's a lot of useful info in there. Obviously wouldn't want all that printed
out everytime you type "facter" of course :)
But I also agree it should be kept very simple - it's definitely a good Unix
example of one tool, one job done well and should remain so. Puppet is a better
placed to handle the complexity - for that reason I'm not convinced facter
should ever try access the network for facts: is keeping your puppet node
information in ldap with extra variables not a better way to do that?
-ross
Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United
Kingdom.
Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
