I agree, it seems like this solution would be simple and effective. I am almost positive there are other types that behave this way. It breaks nothing and fixes everything, as far as I can see.
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:48:21 PM UTC-6, Pedro Côrte-Real wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Adrien Thebo > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Long story short, allowing multiple resources to exist with the same > title > > but different providers is problematic. > > There's no reason to need to do that though. Package just needs to be > able to override the package name without changing $name as that needs > to be unique. So you should be able to do something like: > > package { 'somepackage-in-apt': ensure => present, pkgname => > 'somepackage', provider => apt, } package { 'somepackage-in-gem': > ensure => absent, pkgname => 'somepackage', provider => gem, } > > Since we've used $pkgname instead of $name this doesn't have the > uniqueness issue. I've looked around the code and this seems easy > enough to do. The Package providers just need to do "pkgname ||= name" > so the older stuff doesn't break. > > Can anyone find any fault with this solution? I've commented on these > bug reports a lot of times and never gotten any answer to this. It > seems pretty amazing that this bug still exists after so many years. > > Pedro > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/7eb053d7-be1b-47b0-8a72-73a57d898612%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
