bcfg2

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:30 -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > What was wrong with glump and friends?
> > 
> > It's simple, no cryptic formatting of files or craziness. The scripting
> > language that runs on the hosts is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> There's nothing "wrong" with glump.  It does an excellent job at what it
> was designed to do.  I think that the issue here is that {cfengine,
> bcfg2, puppet} were designed to do more that serve out customized
> versions of config files, like checking ownership/permissions of files,
> the status of servcies, and whether packages are installed.


So what we do at duke with glump is have it serve out custom versions of
cron jobs.

we have a cron job that runs hourly and nightly that requests its jobs
via glump.

glump puts together the shell script for that host and hands it back.

so if we want to check ownerships or update packages it would be:


chown user.group /path/to/file
yum -d0 -e0 -y install your_pkg_set

That's why we don't need the other features, we implement them within
what glump can do.

-sv