On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 6:06:33 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > I think I filed a bug about this a while back. > > +1 for autorequiring targets > >
I'm inclined to disagree. Autorequiring should be reserved for cases where the requirement is inherent in the resource's nature. Files' dependencies on their parent directories are a good example (except when ensuring 'absent'): when a file and its directory are both under management, you cannot be confident of managing the file properly if you do not first manage its directory. Symbolic links do *not* have the same kind of relationship with their targets. A link can be managed entirely independently of its target, therefore Puppet should not automatically demand a particular order. As a general rule, it is important for resource types to model their corresponding physical resources as cleanly as possible, lest unintended consequences arise. In this particular case, autorequiring link targets can create dependency cycles in cases that would otherwise be perfectly good. I observe, too, that in the example presented, the convenience afforded by the proposed autorequirement is a function of the *use* of the resource, not inherent in the resource itself. Puppet cannot know that, or be expected to account for it. It is the manifest author who should be expected to take responsibility for modeling such site-specific requirements. 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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/1aecc279-4620-4a36-bfb4-8f38c9ea3479%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
