On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Stefan Schulte < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:25:35AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > I know that the pacman type for Archlinux puppet support is not yet > official > > (I really need to write those darn tests), but I am having trouble with > what > > seems to be a race condition, and I was hoping that you guys could shed > some > > light on the situation. > > > > The vast majority of the time puppet runs without problems on my Arch > > systems, but every now and then I get a false positive from a package > > install, then a file which is requires the package gets laid down, then > the > > next time puppet runs the package fails to install because the file is > > already on the system. But the real concern is that I am getting a false > > positive for an installed package. > > What exactly do you mean by »false positive«? Puppet reports a package > as installed while it's not (maybe wrong regex in instances classmethod) > or that puppet reports a successful installation while in fact there > were errors? > > When I understand your provider correctly you install a package and > afterwards try to query that package with > > pacman -Qi <PACKAGENAME> > > What does this command report for an absent package? If pacman returns > just nothing your query method returns an empty hash. And an empty hash > is true so your unless case in your install method is never checked. > > You should check what pacman returns when errors occur or if you try to > install a package that is not in your database. If it returns something <> > 0 you can strip your install method down to your pacman call. > > > > The pacman.rb type I am using can be found here: > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/puppet/puppet/pacman.rb > > > > Please help me figure out why I am getting a false positive on this :) > > > > Also, the puppetmaster is on ubuntu 10.04 and is running puppet 0.25 and > the > > client is 2.6.4, will this cause any problems? > > > I guess this can be a problem too > > -Stefan > So I got this type from someone who wrote it a few years ago and was not updating it, and I just patched it up to get it to work. Honestly, I have been lazy about this. After hearing your feedback I am going to rewrite this more or less from scratch. Thanks for the feedback, in a few days I will ask you all to look over a new one and give me some suggestions if that is alright :) -Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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-dev?hl=en.
