Le 28/08/2013 16:53, jcbollinger wrote :
>> As a result, I have deduced that this code below was correct *and* not
>> redundant:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> # 1. One declaration.
>> file { '/usr/local/puppet_host/list':
>> mode => 440,
>> content => "List.\n",
>> }
>>
>> # 2. Another one.
>> File <<| tag == 'exported' |>> {
>> mode => 0644,
>> }
>>
>> # 3. Ordering.
>> File['/usr/local/puppet_host/list'] -> File <<| tag == 'exported' |>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>>
>
>
> Yes. The code is at least redundant, in that both appearances of
>
> File <<| tag == 'exported' |>>
>
> specify the inclusion of the matching resources in the target node's
> catalog, regardless of the fact that they appear in contexts that carry
> distinct additional implications.
Ok, so if I follow your logic, this simple code below is correct and
redundant too, isn't it? (and the rendundancy is not a problem)
----------------------------------------
# 1. One declaration.
file {'/tmp/test1':
ensure => present,
content => "Hi.",
}
# 2. Another one.
notify {'after':
message => '/tmp/test1 has already been synced.',
}
# 3. Ordering.
File['/tmp/test1'] -> Notify['after']
----------------------------------------
>> If I understand, the code above is correct but redundant, is'nt it?
>> And the correct and not redundant way with chaning is:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> file { '/usr/local/puppet_host/list':
>> mode => 440,
>> content => "List.\n",
>> }
>>
>> ->
>>
>> File <<| tag == 'exported' |>> {
>> mode => 0644,
>> }
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>
>
> That is certainly non-redundant, and it looks correct to me.
[...]
>> Is it possible to separate declaration and after chaining like in the
>> first
>> example? Perhaps it's impossible with exported resources...
>>
>>
>
> That's the thing. The syntax seems to support it, just as you originally
> wrote, and I would expect your original code to do what you wanted.
We agree. ;-)
> I cannot explain why it doesn't;
Me too. Don't you think that it can be interpreted as a little bug? (or
just a inconsistency?)
It's very curious, if I just change the title of the exported files,
then the order is as we expect (I give an example in my message #2).
> I'm just trying to help you find a workaround.
You don't try, you succeed in doing so and I thank you for that. ;-)
--
Francois Lafont
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
