Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:34:46 +0100 From: Marko =?UTF-8?B?Q3VwYcSH?= <marko.cupac@mimar.rs> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other? Message-ID: <20160229083446.65cb479f@mephala> In-Reply-To: <CAG_PEey4TR%2BZo=bq24HCmShYV1FZJpBiPAeegF5455oUjER5pg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG_PEey4TR%2BZo=bq24HCmShYV1FZJpBiPAeegF5455oUjER5pg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:11:36 -0500 Chris Inacio <nacho319@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, >=20 > I was considering adding some more support into some tooling/ports for > FreeBSD and I thought it would probably be good to get configuration > management support some thought. So I can understand under certain > Linux flavors (e.g. RedHat) that puppet is the de facto choice - > since the distribution packager has chosen one. >=20 > Is there a dominant one for FreeBSD? >=20 > Happy if you would just reply with which one, if any, you use. If > you want to add more to the conversation, that's fine. I understand > the mailing list I posted this to and the likely audience - as I said > I started think about this from adding more support into some ports. For my relatively simple task of occasional push of identical configuration files to dozens of jails I use salt. --=20 Before enlightenment - chop wood, draw water. After enlightenment - chop wood, draw water. Marko Cupa=C4=87 https://www.mimar.rs/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160229083446.65cb479f>