On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:05:30 +0200, Jakov Sosic wrote: > > On 08/22/2011 06:29 PM, Mike Lococo wrote: > > > This is a long-standing bug, and one that I consider fairly major but > > has been hard to get puppetlabs focused on. > > > > - The circular deps bug was reported 2 years ago. > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1935 > > - A few months later a patch is submitted to batch rpm transactions. > > This solves the circular-deps issue and also has significant > > performance benefits during puppet runs with many package installs. > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2198 > > > > This comes up periodically and inevitably someone proposes that the > > architecturally "correct" solution is for RedHat not to employ circular > > deps, which shuts down discussion of a potential solution for another > > 3-6 months: > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/8a083899386909d5/ > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/9cbeadad62741b0a/ > > > I could incorporate that patch into RPM's... ensure => purged is > obviously not a good idea after all (although it works). > > > I have another question about packages... > > What if I define something like this: > > package {'httpd': ensure => absent, } > package {'mod_ssl': ensure => latest, } > > It is obvious that httpd is a dependency of mod_ssl. What will happen in > this case?! > > > I'm asking because I have a template for all my machines with minimal > package requirements, and I do that with lots of ensure=>absent. > > But if some package requires some of the "absent" pacakges, what happens > then? > >
I would expect Puppet to end up installing and uninstalling packages every run, since it has no knowledge of the package dependencies. -- Jacob Helwig ,---- | Join us for PuppetConf, September 22nd and 23rd in Portland, OR | http://bit.ly/puppetconfsig `----
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
