The ICAClient package requires the 32 bit versions of libXp and
openmotif. I have this class defined:

class icaclient{

    case $architecture {

        i386: {

            package { "ICAClient":
                provider => rpm,
                source   => "$kickstart/ICAClient/RHEL5/
ICAClient-11.100-1.i386.rpm",
                ensure   => installed,
            }
        }

        x86_64: {

            package { "libXp-32bit":
                provider => rpm,
                source   => "$kickstart/ICAClient/RHEL5/
libXp-1.0.0-8.1.el5.i386.rpm",
                ensure   => installed,
            }

            package { "openmotif-32bit":
                provider => rpm,
                source   => "$kickstart/ICAClient/RHEL5/
openmotif-2.3.1-2.el5_4.1.i386.rpm",
                ensure   => installed,
                require  => Package["libXp-32bit"],
            }

            package { "ICAClient":
                provider => rpm,
                source   => "$kickstart/ICAClient/RHEL5/
ICAClient-11.100-1.i386.rpm",
                ensure   => installed,
                require  => Package["openmotif-32bit", "libXp-32bit"],
            }

        }
    }
}

On the initial run of puppetd on a 64 bit system I see these lines:
notice: //icaclient/Package[libXp-32bit]/ensure: created
notice: //icaclient/Package[openmotif-32bit]/ensure: created
notice: //icaclient/Package[ICAClient]/ensure: created

Everything installed correctly and the ICAClient works.

On subsequent puppetd executions I get these:
err: //icaclient/Package[libXp-32bit]/ensure: change from absent to
present failed: Execution of '/bin/rpm -i --oldpackage /net/rfns1/vol/
flexsrc/kickstart/config/ICAClient/RHEL5/libXp-1.0.0-8.1.el5.i386.rpm'
returned 1: warning: /net/rfns1/vol/flexsrc/kickstart/config/ICAClient/
RHEL5/libXp-1.0.0-8.1.el5.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY,
key ID 37017186
        package libXp-1.0.0-8.1.el5.i386 is already installed

Why is it attempting to install libXp again? Shouldn't the ensure =>
installed prevent that from happening? Or does it have something to do
with the fact it is a duplicate package name but with a different
architecture?

Lastly, does anyone have a suggestion on what to do to prevent this
error?

Thanks,
Ed

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to