It was a sorta late-night conversation on IRC, and I was the proponent of inheriting from the base providers, but I don't feel super strongly that it's the right path. Conversation started here:
https://botbot.me/freenode/puppet/2014-12-15/?msg=27586083&page=4 --eric0 On Monday, December 15, 2014 2:01:19 PM UTC-8, Felix Frank wrote: > > On 12/15/2014 10:18 AM, eric gisse wrote: > > I'm opening this up to thoughts on how to do PUP-3765 > <https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PUP-3765> properly. Am I going in > the right direction or is there a better way? > > Note: stuff like separate providers was discussed and I hate it deeply due > to maintainability/usability concerns. Keeping it in the provider feels > like the way to go, I'm just having a bit of an issue with a proper > implementation. > > > Hi, > > where was this discussed? The ticket has no comments and no links. > > A separate set of providers seems undesirable to me as well. We would be > looking at a) lots of code duplication or b) a layer of inheritance that > serves a pretty weak purpose. > > The question of "is SELinux enabled or not" is independent of "which tool > chain should be used to manage OS services". Anyway, I see no reason why > anyone would not want any given provider to Just Work, SELinux or not. > > What is your implementation's approach and what issues are you facing? > > Thanks, > Felix > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/8b446cfb-7c67-4df2-a573-51466cd2363f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
