On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 6:55:19 AM UTC-5, Felix Frank wrote:
>
> On 10/08/2014 01:23 PM, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> >
> > service { 'my_service': require => Package['mysql']{ :provider => 'gem'
> } }
>
> How about require => Package<| title == 'mysql' and provider == 'gem' |>
>
I filed a feature request years ago to support exactly that (Collections as
rvalues). I didn't think it was ever implemented as such, but the chain
operators cover more or less the same ground.
>
> Not that it matters - having two Package[mysql] resources will *never*
> be a thing.
>
> If I understand Andy correctly, we might have something like
>
> package { 'mysql-gem': package_name => mysql, provider => gem }
>
> ...which is awful I guess. Anyway, relationship targets will not be
> jeopardized (that I can see).
>
It is more than awful. It either overloads the package title in dangerous
ways, or else it deeply undermines Puppet's protections against duplicate
resources. Consider, what is the meaning of this:
package { 'mysql-gem': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'yum' }
?
Does it duplicate any or all of these resources?
package { 'mysql-yum': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'yum' }
package { 'mysql-rpm': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'rpm' }
package { 'mysql-gem': package_name => 'mysql' }
?
Do the the above Package['mysql-yum'] and Package['mysql-rpm'] conflict
with each other? (They should.)
I can come up with bunches of similar issues.
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/2522e510-49d9-4389-a673-f89fe46ace10%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
