Hi,
On 01/20/2012 11:34 PM, Cody wrote:
> Defining all somewhat common packages in a central location becomes
> unrealistic when you no longer "control" the code that is in every
> module you use. If you obtain five modules from the forge and they
> all require a specific package and so all define that package your not
> going to convince, nor is it a good design to require everyone to move
> the package definitions from that collection of modules. They need to
> function as a collection out of the box.
Agreed. How can this be accomplished?
Perhaps there needs to be some kind of "Forge common" module that by
policy can only ever declare virtual resources (packages are a prominent
example).
A user who wishes to retain the capability of using modules from the
Forge would be required to install this common module, and replace their
own resource declarations with realizations of the common resources.
For this to work, it's definitely a plus that you can override
attributes in collections:
Package<| title == "apache2": |> { ensure => "2.2.12" }
...although that does bear some caveats. Does this still work in recent
versions?
If we can take this for granted, all Forge modules can adhere to that
same standard.
Yes, it's quite a hassle.
No, I didn't think this through very thoroughly ;-)
Just another pair of cents.
Cheers,
Felix
--
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.
