On 24/01/12 19:53, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> What if you made two functions:
>
> 1. declare_capability("foo")
> This would essentially just create an empty resource, Capability[foo]. If
> multiple modules tried to declare the same capability, it would error, just
> like
> we do today with duplicate resources.
>
> 2. require_capability("foo")
> This would just declare a requirement relationship to Capability[foo]. If it
> couldn't find that resource, compilation would fail.
>
>
> Wouldn't something like this solve the general problem? We don't really want
> to
> just speak about packages, you generally want to be able to express
> requirements
> like:
>
> * This module requires a working SSH server
> * This module requires a MySQL database
More generally, I think it'd be nice to have a way to be able to define
resources, in a way approximately like Puppet already does, but without also
having to say "and if anyone else tries to define the same name resource in any
way, fail".
i.e. Say there were two unrelated modules which said slightly different but
*compatible* things:
Module a:
file { "/foo/bar":
ensure => 'present',
owner => 'root',
content => "blah blah",
}
Module b:
file { "/foo/bar":
ensure => 'present',
mode => '0774',
}
Currently Puppet doesn't allow them to co-exist. It would be nice if instead it
could be told to check these definitions are consistent, and then enforce the
union of the two. The same principle could apply to users, groups, packages,
and presumably any other resources.
See my related point in the thread "constraint checking".
N
--
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.
