On 10 July 2013 18:57, Ashley Penney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi guys, > > As I mentioned in a previous email I've refactored ntp and released a > 1.0.0 release candidate. There's one outstanding "flaw" remaining that's > bothering me and I wanted to solicit opinions on the list. We currently > maintain a template per distribution that is close to the stock > distribution provided ntp configuration. This leads to massive sprawl and > means adding a distribution means yet another template. > I can see your point of view regarding sprawl/extending to additional distributions. However, see below. > Would users of the ntp module mind if we unified this all into a single > template? Obviously we'd have to pick one as the best "base" template and > move over to using it and deal with the fact that your ntp configuration > would significantly change. > As a sysadmin, that significant change is more important. I like to keep services configured as the distribution does so out of the box, unless there's a specific reason not to. As such, I'd like the diffs between the RPM-provided config file and the puppet-provided template to be as small as possible so that when an agent picks the change up, it's obvious what/why the change has been made. Additionally, this helps when an RPM upgrade occurs and a .rpmsave file is generated; diffing a close-to-stock config file again will be much easier to audit for potential changes to pick up. With all that said, if the consensus is to provide a single template, it's easily overridable using the config_template parameter, so I can just drop the stock RHEL-provided file in there myself. Regards, Matt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
