On Jul 22, 8:45 am, vagn scott <vagnsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 09:08 AM, jcbollinger wrote:
>
> > Well yes, but that's not relevant to the OP's problem.  I had in fact
> > supposed that he omitted all that so as to provide a smaller failure
> > case.
>
> The OP's problem is that he is not including the header
> fragment in "Assemble_Sudo_Fragments".  It is easy to miss
> because
>
> 1. the code is noisy, he should get rid of those long interpolations
>     in the resources
> 2. he is handling the header fragment outside of the fragment directory,
>     complicating the design.
>
> I didn't spot the logic error until I rewrote the thing:


I agree with your criticisms of the manifest, but they do not explain
the Puppet behavior that he asked about, which is:

1. File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"] formally requires
Exec["Validate_Check_File"]
2. Application of Exec["Validate_Check_File"] fails on the client
3. Puppet applies File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"] anyway.

Puppet should not, and typically doesn't, apply resources that require
a failed resource.  The content of the file managed by
File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"] is not directly relevant.


John

-- 
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