On Monday, September 29, 2014 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, omfg9899 wrote:
>
> Puppet Version : 2.7.25
>
> So I don't get it at all..
>
> <snip>
> err: Could not apply complete catalog: Found 1 dependency cycle:
> (Exec[chown_logdir] => Class[Jetty] => User[evolve] => Exec[chown_logdir])
> Cycle graph written to /var/lib/puppet/state/graphs/cycles.dot.
> </snip>
>
> <Cycle graph>
> digraph Resource_Cycles {
> label = "Resource Cycles"
> "Exec[chown_logdir]" -> "Class[Jetty]" -> "File[/mnt/jetty-logs]" ->
> "File[/opt/jetty/current/logs]" -> "Class[Jetty]"
> "Exec[chown_logdir]" -> "Class[Jetty]" -> "User[evolve]" ->
> "Exec[chown_logdir]"
>
> </Cycle graph>
>
> I get past some other crazy ignorant issues only to be faced with one
> that I find even more miserable..
>
I'm sorry that you are having difficulties. I am not impressed by your
attitude.
Despite my better judgement, I am going to try to help you anyway.
>
> "err: Could not apply complete catalog: Found 1 dependency cycle:"
>
> I have tried to break this down to make sense, but I can't make heads or
> tails of it.. The worse part is that it worked fine with an earlier
> version of puppet..
>
Puppet chooses an acceptable order in which to apply resources with with
respect to the "relationships" between them, including those you declare
explicitly, and typically also some that Puppet identifies automatically.
(As an example of the latter, if you are managing both File['/foo'] and
File['/foo/bar'], then Puppet will automatically use File['/foo'] ->
File['/foo/bar'] unless you explicitly tell it otherwise.) The explicit
relationships are specified in your manifests via the chain operators (e.g.
->), via the 'require', 'before', 'subscribe', and 'notify' resource
metaparameters, and/or via the 'require' statement/function (in modern
Puppet there is also the 'contain' statement/function, but that does not
pertain to you).
It is possible for you to declare two or more resources and a set of
relationships such that there is no order in which the resources can be
applied that complies with all the relationships among them. This is
called a "dependency cycle" because if you follow the chain of dependencies
described by the relevant resource relationships then you eventually return
to the resource from which you started. When Puppet encounters such a
situation it takes a conservative course and bails out. That's as it
should be: it is far better to decline to configure the target machine than
to risk *mis*configuring it.
>
> There are a couple of pieces of declarations that I think have something
> to do with it..
>
> <code>
>
> exec {'remove_original_logs_dir':
> command => 'rm -rf /opt/jetty/current/logs',
> path => '/bin/',
> require => File["$jetty_home/current"],
> before => File['/opt/jetty/current/logs'],
> }
>
> file {'/opt/jetty/current/logs':
> ensure => link,
> target => '/mnt/jetty-logs',
> require => File["$jetty_home/current"],
> }
>
> </code>
>
The error message describing the cycle(s) tells you exactly which resources
are involved, and therefore which declarations to consider. The first of
the declarations you presented is not among the resources involved in
either of the cycles you described. The second is involved in one of them.
> If I remove the second of these two, where it creates the synlink, this
> error goes away. I do however need that symlink to exist..
>
Yes, it is to be assumed that the resource is declared because you need to
have it. The solution to a dependency cycle issue is not to remove
resources from the catalog; it is simply to change or remove the
relationships among them to eliminate the conflict.
You can start by removing the 'require' parameter from
File['/opt/jetty/current/logs']. If the value of $jetty_home happens to be
"/opt/jetty" and you are also managing File['/opt/jetty/current'] then
Puppet will create that relationship automatically; otherwise you don't
need it. In all likelihood that will not solve this particular problem,
however, because I don't think the main issue is in that declaration.
Let's start with the whole body of class "jetty", which I suppose probably
includes the two declarations you already presented, and likely others.
Also, if *any* of your manifests contains a reference to that class (i.e.
the form "Class['Jetty']") then the declarations containing those are also
relevant.
John
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/c262ade7-e6bc-4074-a8db-2eb3c1ffe251%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
