Skip to content

add etckeeper {pre,post}run_commands to generated puppet.conf #12

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rsrchboy
Copy link
Contributor

@rsrchboy rsrchboy commented Mar 2, 2013

This allows automatic integration with the etckeeper system, if it is
present and configured. AFAIK this is the easiest way available to track /etc
changes pre/post a puppet apply run; but even if not it's very common and
useful :)

The etckeeper scripts are supplied (and enabled by default) by the ubuntu
puppet-common package.

This allows automatic integration with the etckeeper system, if it is present
and configured.  AFAIK this is the only way available to track /etc changes
pre/post a puppet apply run; but even if not it's very common and useful :)

The etckeeper scripts are supplied (and enabled by default) by the ubuntu
puppet-common package.
@johnl
Copy link
Contributor

johnl commented Mar 24, 2013

Hi, thanks for the patch. sorry for the delay in responding!

this is neat, but I'm wondering how it'll affect people not using etckeeper. Will puppet fail to run? I think puppet-git-receiver should support non-ubuntu/debian package installs of puppet so we can't assume it's the etckeeper is installed.

Should we have puppet-git-receiver check to see it's installed before adding it to the config? Does it need configuring?

Or perhaps just have a git option to enable it (and have it disabled by default) and document it?

I'm worried about risking breaking the script in some circumstances to benefit the minority of users who use etckeeper. What do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants