On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Mohit Chawla > <mohit.chawla.bin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Except that some definitions may be gone. That's what worries me. Sure >>> I can read the pp files as they are today. >> >> That's probably true for any tool or method. Unless it was in version >> control. > > Not true of packages under any modern packaging system, as per the > example given.
Which is an excellent reason for using packages with Puppet. There are other issues here, but I'm quite firmly of the opinion that if you need to manage a complex set of files related to a single function, and you want the features that a packaging system provides, you should build packages yourself and use Puppet to manage the state of that package. This doesn't solve every negation problem, but it significantly reduces the problem space. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
