On 10/08/2014 10:34 PM, Charlie Sharpsteen wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:51:32 AM UTC-7, John Bollinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 6:55:19 AM UTC-5, Felix Frank wrote:
>
> 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' }
> ?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The resource title is supposed to
be arbitrary here. These manage the same resource:
package { 'mysql-gem': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'gem' }
package { 'mysql-foo': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'gem' }
package { 'apache': package_name => 'mysql', provider => 'gem' }
> 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' }
> ?
Only titles clash, so these three could share one catalog. If yum is
your default provider, then the first and third do manage the same resource.
> To me, this proposal seams like the most pragmatic way to alleviate the
> problem without a major retool of how the Package type works. At the
> moment, I'm not convinced that opening up the possibility of accidental
> misuse outweighs the current issues surrounding the workarounds people
> have to use in order to install a package and a gem that happen to share
> the same name.
Thanks for this summary Charlie, it mirrors my feeling quite exactly.
If we open Pandora's box, users will have ample new opportunity to shoot
their own feet. I don't think that there can be a solution that prevents
abuse in the form of conflicting resources, but we do allow a use case
that we know is problematic for several if not many users.
So in response to Andy's request for a pick, I feel that making packages
non-isomorphic and allow namevar != title would be a fair compromise.
package { 'mysql-foo': name => 'mysql', provider => 'gem' }
Yes this might get abused by Forge modules. Nothing we can do about
that, as far as I can tell.
Cheers,
Felix
--
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/543697D3.8010207%40alumni.tu-berlin.de.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
