Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this came to my attention again today.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:20 AM, John Bollinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:50:19 AM UTC-5, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >> >> SecondaryPackage wouldn't fix it if you wanted to install using pip and >> gem on the same system. >> >> > > I see I should have devoted more text to my last statement: "The trick > here would be that the provider(s) must not be based on package type, so > that the package type could be used as part of a composite name." If the > type's name were a composite of type (gem, pip, etc.) and name within that > type, then it very well could support different package types all in one > resource type. I suppose the individual package types could be features. > Whereas such an approach cannot work for Package, it would be eminently > workable for a unified SecondaryPackage type. > > Putting it all in one type might make it a bit easier to convert existing > manifests, and it would give users a single place to look for support for > this sort of thing. On the other hand, the provider(s) would have to > support multiple (secondary) package types. It's a trade-off between what > aspects must be complicated and what parts can be simple. > > I think there might be a much simpler solution to the entire thing. I noticed that all of the error messages that I've seen about this are about being unable to alias. What seems to be happening is that since the "name" parameter of a package resource is the namevar, the system is automatically creating an alias for the package resource using the name. That means that we have both a Package[title] reference and a Package[name] reference. The same thing occurred in the comment that was recently added to the ticket about the tidy type. So here is my proposal: just remove the automatic aliasing. That means that the only way to reference a resource is via the title or an explicit alias. I tried this out on a VM by simply commenting out one line ( https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/master/lib/puppet/resource/catalog.rb#L90) and it seemed to work wonders. Why not just go with that change? Am I missing something? > > John > > -- > 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/3c52ca61-15b1-48e7-a694-c3fafd70b11c%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/3c52ca61-15b1-48e7-a694-c3fafd70b11c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Andrew Parker [email protected] Freenode: zaphod42 Twitter: @aparker42 Software Developer *Join us at **PuppetConf 2014, **September 20-24 in San Francisco - * www.puppetconf.com -- 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/CANhgQXtardhP4jCc-35G8QG36h4%2BUE53GLAoVpVXRSXP7remJQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
