[Pkg-puppet-devel] should config.ru be a conffile?

[Nigel Kersten]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Nigel Kersten
<nigel at explanatorygap.net> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM,
Marc Fournier
> <marc.fournier at camptocamp.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:41:20AM -0700, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>>
>>> I imagine we may not be the only deployment that sets up config.ru
>>> with a --config parameter to look at a different config file for
>>> puppetmaster, and would argue that
>>> /usr/share/puppet/rack/puppetmasterd/config.ru should probably be a
>>> conffile.
>>
>> I suppose most people manage their puppetmaster setup using puppet itself.
>> But in this specific case, we have a sort of chicken and egg problem.
>>
>> So I agree with you it makes sense to avoid overwriting config.ru on
>> package update. But it seems that in this case, the file should be moved in
>> /etc (as specified in the policy[¹]), or at least have a symlink to it in
>> /etc.
>
> I completely forgot about this bit of policy, and it does matter.
>
> From memory, we no longer need to preserve the 'puppetmasterd' part of
> the path component for the config.ru file, as the name no longer
> matters for 2.6.x, and we could easily put this into
> /etc/puppet/rack/config.ru
>
> Something bothers me about putting the whole
> /etc/puppet/rack/{public,tmp} data in /etc as it's more than just
> config files, but in practice it isn't really a problem for
> puppet/passenger as there's little reason to actually put data there.
>
> Perhaps we should switch to the config.ru file being in /etc/puppet
> and symlinking back to /usr/share/puppet ? That doesn't feel like an
> awesome solution either though.

Mathias, what do you think? You put this package together, so how
would you feel about us moving the config.ru file into /etc and
marking it as a conffile ?