On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Douglas Garstang
<doug.garst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Brian Gallew <g...@gallew.org> wrote:
>> There are two standard answers for conflicting items like this.
>> 1) Break out the conflicting items into their own class/definition.
>> 2) Learn to love virtual resources and realize them as necessary.
>>
>
> Brian,
>
> For (1), I don't see how that would help. If I put the package that's
> defined in the jboss definition into a new definition, the same
> problem would still persist.
> For (2), I just read through the virtual resource documentation at
> http://projects.reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/wiki/Virtual_Resources,
> and I'm not sure I can see how I would be able to use that to solve
> this problem.
>
> Doug.
>
*sigh* Well, I'm having no luck. I first tried putting the virtual
resource in the jboss base class, but realized that this wouldn't
work, since we don't know how many instances we are going to be
defining ahead of time, and we also do this everywhere:
package {
"package1":
ensure => "1.2";
}
I don't think it's documented, but it works quite well for being able
to set the version number of RPM's programatically. I then put this
into the jboss instance definition:
@package { "lg-jboss-server-inst-${name}": ensure => "${version_core}" }
realize(Package["lg-jboss-server-inst-${name}"])
but puppet complains about the value being passed to ensure. It has
never done this anywhere else. *sigh* Why so difficult?
Doug.
--
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.
