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.