I had a number of symbolic links for file resources and didn''t consider the impact. source => "puppet:///modules/$some_module/some_file_which_is_a_symbolic_link" would actually transfer the link and not the content of the source link. Moving it to templates and appending .erb to the names handled things fine but I thought I should toss this out there because it was unexpected. -- Craig White ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ craig.white@ttiltd.com 1.800.869.6908 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.ttiassessments.com Need help communicating between generations at work to achieve your desired success? Let us help! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Craig White wrote:> I had a number of symbolic links for file resources and didn''t consider the impact. > > source => "puppet:///modules/$some_module/some_file_which_is_a_symbolic_link" > > would actually transfer the link and not the content of the source link. > > Moving it to templates and appending .erb to the names handled things fine but I thought I should toss this out there because it was unexpected.I guess it is supposed to be feature but in my opinion its only value is when you copy a directory structure recursivly and there are possible links in that directory. However, you should get around this when you specify links => follow instead of links => manage (which appears to be the default). See http://docs.puppetlabs.com/references/stable/type.html#links -Stefan
On 07/01/2011 08:41 PM, Craig White wrote:> Moving it to templates and appending .erb to the names handled things fineI think that''s gratuitous. You can use templates without .erb names. Also, the file() function would be more appropriate given the circumstances. Of course, the "right way" is probably what Stefan wrote. Cheers, Felix -- 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 Jul 4, 2011, at 5:45 AM, Felix Frank wrote:> On 07/01/2011 08:41 PM, Craig White wrote: >> Moving it to templates and appending .erb to the names handled things fine > > I think that''s gratuitous. > > You can use templates without .erb names. Also, the file() function > would be more appropriate given the circumstances. > > Of course, the "right way" is probably what Stefan wrote.---- of course it would be the right way and I completely missed that detail the detail was fuzzy enough to require a few reads before I understood it. I sort of like using the extensions feature to remind me of what the file is and how it is being used - especially because of Rails experience, I know instantly that an erb file is for ''view'' Craig -- 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.