Unless you can definitively say that making major changes in the RAL to
address this issue is slated for the near future (say, late 3.x release or
first 4.x release), I'd say the individual fix for package type is
warranted in the meantime. Are there any other types that you think people
are having major issues with at the moment? Maybe the "shim" could be
released in 3.x series and work can proceed on the longterm fix in the 4.x
series?
On Monday, March 10, 2014 10:07:42 AM UTC-5, Adrien Thebo wrote:
>
> My concern with this solution is that it's a one time shim for a single
> type. Granted, it may work and could solve this particular problem. However
> I think this is a flaw in the RAL that has a number of touch points that
> also need to be fixed. This might be me being too idealistic but I think
> that we can fix this issue and improve the entire RAL rather than trying to
> make individual cases work as expected.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Drew Blessing
> <drew.b...@buckle.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> 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 <adr...@puppetlabs.com>
>>> 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 puppet-dev+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/7eb053d7-be1b-47b0-8a72-73a57d898612%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/7eb053d7-be1b-47b0-8a72-73a57d898612%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrien Thebo | Puppet Labs
>
--
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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/74d181f4-60ed-40d3-bcb8-84cc3543d862%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
