So Dexter P sent me an email on this and I want to paraphrase: "I understand there are major implications to this and the task may be challenging, one suggestion would be to set up another facter parameter something like
uname.hostname or uname.domain or perhaps a configuration parameter to use POSIX compliance parameters." Which makes more sense. Our concept of 'hostname' as a fact is equivalent to hostname -s up until now - it doesn't mean the result of the 'hostname' command necessarily. ken. On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Doug Balmer <[email protected]> wrote: >> but I don't think that RFC quoting alone is going to give us the right >> answer as to whether we should do it or not. > > 100% agree. > To add to my point, facter should be reporting facts. If the hostname, > albeit possibly incorrectly, is set to "foo.bar" then it should report it > so. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" 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-users?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" 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-users?hl=en.
