Paul Lathrop wrote: >> Is this true? I'm puzzled that what Luke considers one of Puppet's >> strong suits is derided by >> others as its Achille's heel. > > This is true w/o being the whole story. Puppet obeys declared > dependencies, but if you choose not to declare your dependencies, you > are running the risk of things happening in the wrong order. To me, > this is a bug in your manifests, not a bug in Puppet. Adam doesn't > believe this is a good thing. However, I have found that it gives me a > couple advantages: a) it forces me to really think about the order of > events and determine what is actually dependent on what; b) it allows > me to ignore the order of things when it doesn't matter, but often > reveals situations where it *does* matter and I didn't think of it; c) > there is potential for future optimization; d) I find explicitly > declaring dependencies to be preferable to re-arranging lines in a > file and finding things magically working.
Whilst personally immensely biased I strongly agree with Paul. I was taught (had beaten into me?) as a sys-admin to think through my actions, plan them and understand sequencing and consequences (old school mainframe shop). I think that's a critical skill for a sysadmin and if Puppet forces people to do this when order matters... it's not a bad thing. Regards James Turnbull -- Author of: * Pro Linux Systems Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin) * Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook) * Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios) * Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
