[Puppet Users] Re: Cant get puppet to remove rpm's with circular dependencies

[Jim Pirzyk]

I see the same dependency problem with ypbind and yp-tools that come with Fedora/RHEL/CentOS.

- JimP

On May 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Jason Rojas wrote:

Changing to using an exec seems broken. It prevents you from using the builtin provider that puppet supplies.

RPM circular dependencies have nothing to do with puppet.
I would rebuild the packages and fix the dependency issue, then the
problem would go away.

If you are not comfortable with rebuilding the packages then my
suggestion would be use an exec for this specific case doing a rpm -e
--allmatches --nodeps --force package1 package2

When you pass the package type an array of names, it iterates over
them instead of using the array values  like a glob.

Again, not a puppet issue but a circular dependency issue.
-Jason


On May 1, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Ross McKerchar wrote:

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to use puppet to remove some software on all our
machines. The two rpm's I'm trying to remove are dependent on each
other, that is rpm A requires rpm B and rpm B requires rpm A.

The packages installed fine with puppet via yum (I just asked to
install rpm A). Unfortunately puppet is calling "rpm -e", not "yum
remove" to remove packages so just asking to remove rpm A causes a
dependency error. I tried using "provider => yum" in the package
definition but this was ignored.

To get round this I specified both packages: "package { [rpmA,rpmB]:
ensure => absent }". Unfortunately this doesn't work either. It
appears puppet is running:

for package in packages:
       rpm -e package

As opposed to:

rpm -e " ".join(packages)

(no prizes for guessing what language I am most familiar with :)

Consequently I am unable to use puppet to remove this package. I
cant easily resort to an exec statement as I am doing the following:

class software{
       package{ [a,b]: ensure => present }
}

class software::uninstall{
       package{ [a,b]: ensure => absent }
}

As this allows me per-node control over the removal.

I'm using puppet 0.24.8 on rhel5.3.

Can I get round this, or should I file a bug report?

-ross




Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP,
United Kingdom.
Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/puppet-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

--- @(#) $Id: dot.signature,v 1.15 2007/12/27 15:06:13 pirzyk Exp $
    __o  j...@pirzyk.org -------------------------------------------
 _'\<,_
(*)/ (*) I'd rather be out biking.



--- @(#) $Id: dot.signature,v 1.15 2007/12/27 15:06:13 pirzyk Exp $
    __o  j...@pirzyk.org -------------------------------------------
 _'\<,_
(*)/ (*) I'd rather be out biking.

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part