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.