I recently found myself needing to perform a similar task to that
desired by Udo Waechter in:

https://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/ea6a82d5e58fdb4e

Namely, I would like a file to exist on machine A iff any or all of
machines B-Z have some other resource.  

My current line of thinking was that the best way to do this would be
for B-Z to export some resource that had `require => Class["foo"]`.
That way A could collect a whole bunch of things from B-Z and it didn't
matter how many times that require happened.

Of course this is fragile because of potential differences in import
statements, but I'm willing to ignore that for a while.  What confuses
me most is that #1885 may have classified my desired behavior as a bug:

        https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1885

The original poster wrote about unintended consequences involving outer
defines and the way the AST is traversed, but
https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1885#note-2 is a comment (largely
ignored?) from someone who appears to think that my desired approach is
undesirable.

Am I misguided in this approach?  Will it not even work in modern
puppets?  Unfortunately stored configurations are one aspect of puppet
where I can't easily Just Test It Out.

-- 
Support your droogs!

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