This this definition:
group {
"puppettestgroup2":
gid => 1235,
ensure => present
}
user {
"puppettestuser2":
gid => "puppettestgroup2",
uid => 1235,
ensure => present
}
I see this:
notice: Starting configuration run
notice: //winecellar/puppettestserver/group=puppettestgroup2/ensure: created
err: //winecellar/puppettestserver/user=puppettestuser2/ensure: change from
absent to present failed: Could not create user puppettestuser2: Could not
execute ''/usr/sbin/useradd -u ''1235'' -g
''absent'' puppettestuser2 2>&1'': useradd:
unknown group absentnotice: Finished configuration run in 0.03 second
As per some discussion I found in the list archive, adding an explicit
"before" to the user lets me delete the user and subsequently the
group, but
then, changing back to this (even with the user including an explicit require
for the group), I get the failure, above.
The initial post asked a question about why "-g
''absent''" is there at all,
as it is clearly a problem, but the discussion veered off before anyone
followed that part up...
Thanks in advance for clues! On a second run the user is created, given that
the first run successfully created the group prior to trying to create a user
with group "absent", but that seems tacky...
--
Mason Loring Bliss mason@blisses.org Ewige Blumenkraft!
awake ? sleep : random() & 2 ? dream : sleep; -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I
On Apr 19, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:> This this definition: > > group { > "puppettestgroup2": > gid => 1235, > ensure => present > } > user { > "puppettestuser2": > gid => "puppettestgroup2", > uid => 1235, > ensure => present > } > > I see this: > > notice: Starting configuration run > notice: //winecellar/puppettestserver/group=puppettestgroup2/ > ensure: created > err: //winecellar/puppettestserver/user=puppettestuser2/ensure: > change from absent to present failed: Could not create user > puppettestuser2: Could not execute ''/usr/sbin/useradd -u ''1235'' -g > ''absent'' puppettestuser2 2>&1'': useradd: unknown group > absentnotice: Finished configuration run in 0.03 secondAre you using an older version? I think this bug is fixed somewhere in the 0.22 chain. -- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. --Gerald R. Ford --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:> Are you using an older version? I think this bug is fixed somewhere > in the 0.22 chain.Yeah, this was 0.20.1 from Debian Etch. It''s unfortunate a newer version didn''t get into Etch. :/ -- Mason Loring Bliss mason@blisses.org http://blisses.org/ "I am a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches." (Job 30 : 29)
On Apr 22, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> Are you using an older version? I think this bug is fixed somewhere >> in the 0.22 chain. > > Yeah, this was 0.20.1 from Debian Etch. It''s unfortunate a newer > version > didn''t get into Etch. :/I agree. -- Levy''s Law: The truth is always more interesting than your preconception of what it might be. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
Luke Kanies wrote:> On Apr 22, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: >> >>> Are you using an older version? I think this bug is fixed somewhere >>> in the 0.22 chain. >> Yeah, this was 0.20.1 from Debian Etch. It''s unfortunate a newer >> version >> didn''t get into Etch. :/ > > I agree.I ended up making my own local repository because of exactly this reason. The more recent puppet/puppetmaster packages don''t have any extra requirements that aren''t in etch, so you really only need to install the packages themselves. My repo has just those two packages. :) I will probably add a tomcat5.5 that doesn''t have a broken init script at some point here.... Jordan
* Luke Kanies <luke@madstop.com> [070422 08:32]:> On Apr 22, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: > > > >> Are you using an older version? I think this bug is fixed somewhere > >> in the 0.22 chain. > > > > Yeah, this was 0.20.1 from Debian Etch. It''s unfortunate a newer > > version > > didn''t get into Etch. :/ > > I agree.The versions from lenny/sid will work fine on a etch box, I''ve installed the 0.22.3 from sid without any issues. I''m sure it could also be put up at backports.org. Micah