similar to: Managing entries in /etc/group (membership)

Hi, I have certain situations where I want to manage user attributes, if the user already exists on a system, but not actually create them if they are missing. Is there a way to do this? I tried removing the explicit "ensure => present", but this seems to have no effect (i.e. missing users still created). I am running 2.7.9. Thanks, Alan -- You received this message because

In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across the board. Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from NFS. For that matter, as Enterprise

Hello, I need to expand the membership of a custom system user depending on the availability of some group on the target system i.e. user { "logger": name => "logger", ensure => "present", groups => ["adm", "wheel", "this _group_ if it exists"], shell => "/bin/bash"; } The

I''m attempting to deploy puppet via an NFS share. It''s on a local-only network, and it will contain only ruby (gems) and whatever is needed. Seems simple enough, but tonight I am having an issue with this error: # service puppet start Starting puppet: /local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/ custom_require.rb:36:in `gem_original_require'': no such file to load -- openssl

Hi, Is there a way of issuing a puppet kick to multiple hosts without LDAP? I see the puppet kick options suports this with "all" and "class" but only with LDAP at present. I have a number of hosts so specifying each host using it''s FQDN is a bit messy. I''ve tried using "--no-fqdn" but get: "hostname was not match with the server

Hi, I have several Debian servers with puppet 0.23.2. Part of my manifest looks like this: class virt_all_users { @group { "andy": ensure => "present", gid => "1000" } @user { "andy": ensure => "present", uid => "1000",

We have resources that, from time to time, are selected to be removed (unmanaged). When it comes to ssh keys, fstab... this leaves a lot of stuff behind that we don''t want. Is there a simple way to remove the unmanaged data so we can keep the systems clean. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post

I''ve just tried this (we assume /opt/jetty-6.1.26 already exists): file { "/opt/jetty-6.1.26": owner => "jetty", group => "users", recurse => true, } ... but it''s taking an *age*. What''s the Right Way? Cheers, Robert. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Say I have 50 user accounts that must exist on 3 hosts, each with different passwords (3 hosts, 50 users, 150 passwords). Is it possible to do this without defining each user 3 times? Thank you -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit

I read somewhere recently about problems with Puppet and Ruby 1.9. I''m wondering if this is still an issue? Thanks. -- 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

Our shop is newly adopting puppet. Our number of nodes is growing and my installation method is thus far manual and tedious. This will change when/if we migrate to Puppet Enterprise. My question is what''s a best practice for managing puppet installations on client nodes? Is it possible to separate out the client portion of the install from the server or is that now fully

I have a simple manifest that I''m using to keep unwanted services from running on an array of Linux systems. On my test host, I see these two services repeatedly come up in the puppet.log, even tho they are not running and are chkconfig set to off: service { "cups": enable => false, ensure => stopped, } service {

Hi @all, after upgrading my puppet server to Puppet 3.0 I got the following error every time a client connect to the server: [ pid=1532 thr=70147393710520 file=utils.rb:176 time=2012-10-08 11:17:56.504 ]: *** Exception NoMethodError in PhusionPassenger::Rack::ApplicationSpawner (undefined method `settings'' for Puppet:Module) (process 1532, thread #<Thread:0x7f98ecf7d370>):

/var/log/dovecot exists and has a lot of logging in it, but I get errors (in mail.log) on an always_bcc action in postfix: mail postfix/pipe[13015]: 401cvS0R8BzbSkL: to=<backup+073.kremels-kreme at doamin.tld>, relay=dovecot, delay=398058, delays=398045/13/0/0.04, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (temporary failure. Command output: Can't open log file /var/log/dovecot: Permission denied )

I have some NFS directories that get changed to a read-only status after a period of time. I noticed in puppet, if I change these values and restart puppet and puppetmaster respectively, it does not pick up the change in the mount {} directive. Is there a way around this, or a better way to affect the change. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

I''ve seen mention of this error in several places, with different causes. So before I posted here, I attempted to resolve this on my own. I corrected the change from puppet:///files to puppet:/// in my manifests *.pp files. No changes were made to the auth.conf file, and I did note in the ChangeLog that: Auth.conf differentiates between names and IPs – There’s a new allow_ip

There''s a problem installing puppet on Solaris 10 -- in this situation, we aren''t really doing anything with puppet there. The version we''re using is: ruby 1.8.7 (2011-02-18 patchlevel 334) [i386-solaris2.9] Here''s the first error: # gem update puppet > > Updating installed gems > > Updating puppet > > Building native extensions. This

Is there an easy way to convert a puppet client into being a puppet master? Here''s the scenario. I''m using puppet to configure all my systems, and would like it to be able to deploy a new puppet master as well. We have systems worldwide so having local puppet masters is very desirable for fault tolerance. So Kickstart (via cobbler) installs a puppet client during the initial

We have perhaps 40 to 50 systems, give or take, that are mostly under Puppet management (not all). After having spent some time doing my own thing with open-source, I''m looking into migrating to PE. One question I have is relative to initial deployment -- if I decide to keep PuppetDB on the same server as Master, can I later migrate that role off onto another host? I

CentOS 5.3 w/ updates Puppet 0.25.1.rc2 (installed from source) Mongrel + Nginx Am I making a mistake or is this a bug? I''ve experienced this issue using 0.24.8 from EPEL also. Thu Oct 22 13:59:43 -0700 2009 //user::virtual-users_groups/User [someuser]/ensure (err): change from absent to present failed: Could not create user someuser: Execution of ''/usr/sbin/useradd -G