My 2cents,
Why not use the stdlib that puppet provides. It contains the following
stage presets,
class stdlib::stages {
stage { 'setup': before => Stage['main'] }
stage { 'runtime': require => Stage['main'] }
-> stage { 'setup_infra': }
-> stage { 'deploy_infra': }
-> stage { 'setup_
On 10/18/2010 6:14 PM, Hunter Haugen wrote:
so you could do this:
class orden {
stage { [ 'repos', 'os', 'gLite', 'post' ]: }
Stage['repos'] -> Stage['os'] -> Stage['main'] -> Stage['gLite'] ->
Stage['post']
}
A style question: wouldn't it be preferable to write it like this:
class
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:14:09 -0700
Hunter Haugen wrote:
Hi,
[...]
> In your working example you define the classes and then enforce
> ordering at the same time. The new syntax references the stages but
> doesn't actually define them, so you could do this:
> class orden {
> stage { [ 'repos', '
> 3.-) Stage order.
>
> but when applying new syntax:
>
> class orden {
> Stage['repos'] -> Stage['os'] -> Stage['main'] -> Stage['gLite'] ->
> Stage['post']
> }
In your working example you define the classes and then enforce
ordering at the same time. The new syntax references the stages
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:54:17 +0530
Mohit Chawla wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Bruce Richardson
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Arnau Bria wrote:
> > > 1.-) Stage vs require Class. May we say that stages are groups of
> > > class requires? So a simple/basic exa
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Arnau Bria wrote:
> > 1.-) Stage vs require Class. May we say that stages are groups of class
> > requires? So a simple/basic example:
> >
> > class A {
> > require class B
> > }
> >
> > class B{
>
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Arnau Bria wrote:
> 1.-) Stage vs require Class. May we say that stages are groups of class
> requires? So a simple/basic example:
>
> class A {
> require class B
> }
>
> class B{
> require class C
> }
>
> Is like defining :
>
> Stage[pre] -> Stage[main
