>
> Puppet does not keep track of the state before applying a resource.
> Even if Puppet *did* track prior state, there would still be an issue
> of choosing which of possibly many prior states to revert to.
I'm not asking puppet to know what to do, which I agree is ridiculous. I'm
saying that if and only if I've defined X::disabled, automatically run it on
every host which does not include X. If X::disabled isn't defined, then don't
do anything. Probably a better way to think of it instead of X::disabled is
that for ever class X there is an implicitly defined not-X class, which is
empty until I define it. For example:
class webserver {
package {apache: ensure => installed}
service {apache: ensure => running}
}
class !webserver {
package {apache: ensure => absent}
}
class dnsserver {
[...]
}
node "foo" {
include webserver
}
node "bar" {
include dnsserver
}
On node bar, !webserver would get executed, but because I haven't defined
!dnsserver, node foo wouldn't do anything related to dnsserver.
>> As it is now, one still has to go through and add X::disabled to every host,
>> which is largely defeating the purpose of having a X::disabled class in the
>> first place. (That purpose, for those not paying attention, is to make sure
>> that things are in a known state, including services *not* running where
>> they shouldn't be.)
>
>
> I disagree. The purpose of having an X::disabled is to define what
> exactly you do want when you explicitly want to exclude X. Which
> nodes should have that state ensured is an entirely separate (and not
> clear-cut) question. "Unmanaged" may not be the state you want for
> certain resources, but it is not inherently undesirable for all
> resources.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. It is perfectly reasonable
to want to ensure that things which aren't webservers are, in fact, not running
as webservers, If I want to leave a particular resource unmanaged, then just
don't put anything in the !X class (or the X class, for that matter). Maybe we
have different approaches to how we manage resources, but I genuinely can't
think of an example of where you would want some hosts to be X, some to be !X,
and some to be unknown, which is kind of what I think you're saying here,
because I can't think of anyway that "unmanaged" doesn't mean "unknown".
Darrell
--
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.
