Puppet users - Mar 2008 - Overriding a file without causing duplicate definitions

Hello folks.

I''ve got a problem that I can''t work out the solution to.

My base workstation node definition says essentially:
node base-workstation {
  file { etc-sudoers:
    name => "/etc/sudoers", ...
  }
}

This works fine, all of our workstations get a standardised sudoers file.

However, I have one user on a workstation who needs a specialised
sudoers file.  If I define that file inside of the node definition, I
get a duplicate definition error, which is right, it is a duplicate.

Is there a clean solution to this kind of problem?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Duncan Hill wrote:
> Hello folks.
>
> I''ve got a problem that I can''t work out the solution to.
>
> My base workstation node definition says essentially:
> node base-workstation {
>   file { etc-sudoers:
>     name => "/etc/sudoers", ...
>   }
> }
>
> This works fine, all of our workstations get a standardised sudoers file.
>
> However, I have one user on a workstation who needs a specialised
> sudoers file.  If I define that file inside of the node definition, I
> get a duplicate definition error, which is right, it is a duplicate.
>
> Is there a clean solution to this kind of problem
This kind of issue is exactly what I have to deal with all the time. My 
solution is to have two sets of config files within svn. One is the 
''standard'' configs and the other is where customised files can
be put.
So in

    trunk/shared/all/etc/samba

I have the standard smb.conf I''ll use for all samba machines. If I want
to override it I place a file in a specific place for that machine. i.e.

   trunk/systems/sn1177/config/etc/samba

trunk/shared and trunk/systems are shared using puppet shares. i.e. my 
puppet/fileserver.conf reads

    # config files shared by all or groups of hosts
    [shared]
      path /home/bb2/svn/trunk/shared
      allow *

    # Config files for this specific system
    [system]
    path /home/bb2/svn/trunk/systems/%h
    allow *

And then in the recipe I have stuff like this

  file { "/etc/samba/smb.conf":
    mode => 644,
    owner => root,
    group => root,
    source => ["puppet://bb2/system/config/etc/samba/smb.conf",
                        "puppet://bb2/shared/all/etc/samba/smb.conf"],
  }

The end result is that for each file I use, I''ll look for a specific 
file for that machine and if there''s nothing there I''ll use
the standard
file.

Ian

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 18 mar, 16:58, "Duncan Hill" <bajand...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Hello folks.
>
> I''ve got a problem that I can''t work out the solution to.
>
> My base workstation node definition says essentially:
> node base-workstation {
>   file { etc-sudoers:
>     name => "/etc/sudoers", ...
>   }
>
> }
>
> This works fine, all of our workstations get a standardised sudoers file.
>
> However, I have one user on a workstation who needs a specialised
> sudoers file.  If I define that file inside of the node definition, I
> get a duplicate definition error, which is right, it is a duplicate.
>
> Is there a clean solution to this kind of problem?
You may override the sudoers source in the special node:

node special {
  File["etc-sudoers"] { source => "/another/source" }
}

Best regards
Jose
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 18/03/2008, José González Gómez <jose.gonzalez.gomez@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>  On 18 mar, 16:58, "Duncan Hill" <bajand...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>  > Hello folks.
>  >
>  > I''ve got a problem that I can''t work out the
solution to.
>  >
>  > My base workstation node definition says essentially:
>  > node base-workstation {
>  >   file { etc-sudoers:
>  >     name => "/etc/sudoers", ...
>  >   }
>  >
>  > }
> You may override the sudoers source in the special node:
>
>  node special {
>   File["etc-sudoers"] { source => "/another/source"
}
>  }
Ah!  Thank you Jose, that solves it cleanly.  I was doing a whole new
definition, when I just needed to override the property.  Thanks as
well Ian, that''s another interesting approach.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

My solution to this problem was to generalise.  I have a definition called
"xfile" which I use in place of "file" and it automatically
looks for
host/platform/location-specific versions of the source.

I''m sure there are problems with it, but here it is anyway:

define xfile($owner = root, $group = 0, $mode = 644, $source,
                  $backup = main, $recurse = false, $ensure = file) {
    file { $name:
            mode => $mode,
            owner => $owner,
            group => $group,
            backup => $backup,
            recurse => $recurse,
            ensure => $ensure,
            source => [ "puppet://$server/dist/$source.$hostname",
            
"puppet://$server/dist/$source.$operatingsystem-$itg_location",
             "puppet://$server/dist/$source.$itg_location",
             "puppet://$server/dist/$source.$operatingsystem",
             "puppet://$server/dist/$source" ]
    }
}



On 19/03/08 2:58 AM, "Duncan Hill" <bajandude@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> 
> Hello folks.
> 
> I''ve got a problem that I can''t work out the solution to.
> 
> My base workstation node definition says essentially:
> node base-workstation {
>   file { etc-sudoers:
>     name => "/etc/sudoers", ...
>   }
> }
> 
> This works fine, all of our workstations get a standardised sudoers file.
> 
> However, I have one user on a workstation who needs a specialised
> sudoers file.  If I define that file inside of the node definition, I
> get a duplicate definition error, which is right, it is a duplicate.
> 
> Is there a clean solution to this kind of problem?
> 
> 
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---