On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:59:10 -0500
Nan Liu <n...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
[...]
> > 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.
>
> How would this be implemented in a sane way to deal with any
> attributes that are hash/array? Merge, merge+unique, fail? What if we
> add relationship (require/before) or other meta-parameters to the mix?
> If I use the puppet config_version feature to track what resource is
> changed by which line of puppet code for auditing purpose, how would I
> audit a single attribute that can be due to multiple line of code?
> Once I started thinking about define types (which behave like a
> resource), it's gets rather complex especially with conditional
> branching in the define type.
>
> Don't get me wrong, this clearly would be a useful feature, but I'm
> interested only if the rules of how this would behave can be clearly
> expressed and understood, otherwise this will be a maze of pain trying
> to figure out what part of the code broke something.
Getting into this level of detail is interesting, but quite beyond the
initial simple use case of the package type. As it has already been
pointed out in this thread, the initial problem would be solved by
simply allowing duplicates as long as all parameters are identical,
since it's typically just "package { 'foo': ensure => installed }".
That would also have a whole bunch of new implications, as I can imagine
people changing a single parameter in one place and getting confused as
to why the now get duplicate definition errors, but it would be a heck
of a lot simpler than trying to "merge" definitions together :-)
Matthias
--
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.
