On Mon, 23 May 2011 22:28:57 +0200, David Schmitt <da...@black.co.at> wrote: > On 23/05/11 21:25, micah anderson wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > On Wed, 18 May 2011 10:11:22 +0200, David Schmitt<da...@black.co.at> wrote: > >> hetz2:~# puppetd --version > >> 2.6.8 > >> hetz2:~# puppetd --test > >> Could not parse configuration file: StoreConfigs not supported without > >> ActiveRecord 2.1 or higher > >> hetz2:~# > > > > You only would have storeconfigs set on the puppetmaster itself, and the > > puppetmaster package depends on puppetmaster-common which Suggests: > > rails. > > > >> If I put storeconfigs=true into the [master] section, puppet agent > >> complains about collections: > > > > Again, you should not put storeconfigs=true in the puppet.conf on > > clients, unless it is the master itself, and then the master should have > > installed the suggested Rails package. > > Why bother with sub-command specific config sections at all, then?
This seems to me to be a bug in upstream puppet. I wouldn't think that the client would parse the [master] section, and instead that should be reserved for puppetmaster operations. I dont think it makes sense to overload the Suggests in the puppet package to add rails, because this would make a lot of people install the rails package on all of their client nodes, when it is not needed at all on the nodes. I think that either upstream puppet should be more smart about the sub-command specific configuration sections, or you can ship your puppet.conf as a template, omitting the [master] section on your nodes. If you file a bug upstream for this, please let us know so we can track it. micah
pgpx0jkLkRYrX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
