Re: [PATCH] Setup to create a separate cobbler-puppet pacakge for enabling cobbler as a puppet external node.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 16:16, Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
Scott Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:37:08 -0600, Greg Swift <gregswift(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi all. This is a patch I put together that might be useful for
>> letting puppet access cobbler using the ext-nodes script without
>> having to move files (binary and config) from your cobbler server
>> to install on your puppet server, most specifically with an RPM. I
>> made the script search for the config file, so that should help
>> make it work in several use cases.
>>
>> I'm using this script in my environment now, and seems to be more
>> than adequate, however this is just one use case.
>
> I like it, a couple of things though. Does cobbler-ext-nodes
> actually require puppet? I would think it would be puppet-server
> that makes use of it, and even then, the cobbler-puppet package
> should not require puppet-server, me thinks.
And, just from a packaging perspective, if it doesn't require puppet
or puppet-server, it should also own /etc/puppet, to ensure the dir is
not left around should cobbler-puppet be installed without puppet.
E.g: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/puppet
So in response to both of you. I guess its reasonable for it to not require
puppet-server, although at this point it seems to be more heavily tied to
puppet-server (specifically the fact that the cobbler ext node url is puppet
and i put the config file in /etc/puppet) than a generic script. I'm open
to ideas on where to adjust so that its less tied. Would someone using this
with puppet not be running it on a system with puppet-server? I guess it
could be considered a reverse dependency, as puppet-server needs this for
functionality even though it needs puppet-server for the config directory.
But at the end of the day, whichever way you guys want it, as long as it
works, i'm willing to change it to.
-greg
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.4 KB)