[Freedombox-discuss] Chef and Puppet experts?
l.m.orchard at pobox.com
Sat Sep 10 02:08:16 UTC 2011
On 9/9/11 9:55 PM, Nick Daly wrote:
> Puppet/Chef could do that well, but I'm wary. It seems to operate at
> too low a level and exerts too strong (too perfect) a control over the
> system (particularly, the system configs). IIUC, FreedomBoxes would
> need to be slaves to the source Puppetmaster to be kept in sync.
Not necessarily. You can make Puppet apply manifests from the local
filesystem, without a central PuppetMaster server. That's what I do with
Vagrant + Puppet for my dev VMs in general.
> Of course, 2 won't happen if the puppets aren't pulling updates from the
> server, but if that's the case, why are you running puppets?
The reason to run Puppet without a server is that you can still check
manifests into revision control and maintain server config alongside code.
> Also, rewriting the packaging scripts for Puppet or Chef seems like a mighty
Actually, one of Puppet's strengths is that it accommodates the
packaging and configuration conventions of many platforms (eg. RedHat,
But, that's part of what I think would be overkill. Puppet handles a lot
of deployment scenarios, where a Freedombox on a DreamPlug would
probably be better served by preseeding and other Debian-specific tech.
I'd much rather load up a DreamPlug with a pre-configured filesystem
image, than run Puppet to install packages & configure from scratch.
me at lmorchard.com
More information about the Freedombox-discuss