3 ms·
I'm not sure I get your "on the contrary". Any configuration change on a managed configuration file is transient and bound to overwritten next time state is res
by mercurial 14y ago
I'm not sure I get your "on the contrary". Any configuration change on a managed configuration file is transient and bound to overwritten next time state is restored. This makes etckeeper absolutely less useful compared to a system where there is no way to restore state and an unfortunate "rm /etc/passwd" has little remedy. It does not make it "useless", but it's definitely less needed.
- beagle3 14y agoPossibly my misunderstanding, but I thought chef and puppet only push changes on the files that they are configured to control - There are tens of files in /etc/, some possibly modified by an "apt-get upgrade", then reverted by chef, some that chef/puppet do not try to modify. etckeeper is a net that gives you an idea of how /etc looked on a given date or apt-run, not just how it was supposed to look (Which is what you get from the chef/puppet logs). Question to chef/puppet users: do you restore the state continuously? or only when you've made a change?
- mercurial 14y agoYes, it's true that chef/puppet do not overwrite your entire etc, just a subset of it, but presumably, you'll have your critical components backed by it (otherwise, there is not much point in using a configuration management system). So it is still useful on such a system, but not to the same extent of a system without configuration management.
- shabble 14y ago> but presumably, you'll have your critical components backed by it Often, the way you discover something is critical is after the first time it breaks. Backups may help, but proper version history is probably going to give better insight into what happened. Definitely less important, but not useless, IMO.