Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:42:17 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: Chris Inacio <nacho319@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other? Message-ID: <7D8CBCD3-7EFB-46A9-9272-D07A5E72BEBE@grem.de> 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 28 Feb 2016, at 20:11, Chris Inacio <nacho319@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > 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 wan= t > 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. >=20 We're using ansible to configure our FreeBSD machines (bare metal, bhyve, aw= s, do) and jails on them. - Michael=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7D8CBCD3-7EFB-46A9-9272-D07A5E72BEBE>