Issue #5319 has been updated by Nick Moffitt.
Nigel Kersten wrote: > The right answer is in #4067. Puppet needs to be made aware of the > conflict, and represent the actual state of the world, which is that > these things are in conflict, and there is no correct answer. I am highly skeptical of #4067, as you'll need to mirror the relationship graph for some 40,000 packages for each repository configuration present in a network. It's somewhere between non-trivial and inadvisable, in my estimation. I hope I'm missing something big. > Let me move away from packages and imagine we're talking about files. > Do you expect Puppet to be able to cope with two File resources, one > which ensures the file is absent, and another that ensures the file is > present? No. But I do expect to be able to cause actions to depend on the existence of a file *without auto-creating said file*. If a sysadmin then creates that file, the dependencies flow forward on the next run. Likewise I expect to be able to depend on packages without auto-installing them, instead adding them to an external queue. If the request is satisfied, the dependencies will resolve and move forward. Otherwise, things may just stay in limbo. I'm fine with that, and am willing to work that into my alerting infrastructure. I originally asked for a new ensure state to reflect this. I was told in this ticket that wasn't what I should use, so I hacked out a new provider that overloaded the install semantics. I pasted it as a naïve approach, and hoped to see suggestions on how better to accomplish my goals. > You haven't addressed the responsefile option yet either. Why can't > you have a human work out what the correct responses are to make a > package install work (and leave you in a consistent state) and then > represent those responses in the responsefile? If the package uses debconf appropriately, that would work. That's an if. That works for perfect packages only. ---------------------------------------- Feature #5319: ensure => selected for packages requiring interactive installation (dpkg/apt provider at least) https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5319 Author: Nick Moffitt Status: Investigating Priority: Normal Assignee: Nigel Kersten Category: package Target version: Affected Puppet version: Keywords: Branch: At times there are packages with catastrophic failure modes when they are run noninteractively, particularly when working with dpkg. As a result I propose the following option in package providers, presented from a dpkg standpoint. If a package resource is ensure => selected, it will have exactly the same status behavior as ensure => installed, but the installation process will run 'echo "${packagename} install" | /usr/bin/dpkg --set-selections'. This will cause the package to be installed the next time an administrator interactively runs "apt-get dselect-upgrade". This allows configuration changes for a particular package to be held back until that package is installed interactively. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
