I agree with this sentiment, and feel that making this a "low" priority
for Puppet Labs is somewhat strange. Like it or not, Red Hat Linux (or
one of its off-shoots like CentOS) is one of the most popular versions
in production. Package management is one of the most central and
important things a system like Puppet handles. The fact that Puppet
cannot manage packages in RPM format in an efficient and correct way
seems just ridiculous. And saying that the problem is with the package
manager is wholly pointless. That is how it works, and it is therefore
up to Puppet to work with the OS.
Or is Puppet Labs saying that they really only want to design a system
that works with non-Red Hat derived Linux distros? Should I be looking
to rip out Puppet and find something that is more open to working with
my OS of choice, like Chef? What else does Puppet Labs not like about
Red Hat Linux that I don't know about yet?
Marc Zampetti
On 1/17/11 1:11 PM, Mike Lococo wrote:
On 01/17/2011 12:40 PM, Matt wrote:
Unfortunately thats a limitation of RPM which has been worked around
with YUM. YUM will do the resolution of dependencies if they are also
in one of the repositories configured on the system.
Unfortunately RedHat will blacklist systems that run yum too often so
you either must:
1) Not manage packages with circular dependencies using puppet. This
is what I've opted to do, although I find it unfortunate since puppet
would be my preferred venue to do this kind of thing otherwise.
2) Use the yum-driven options *AND* run your own satellite server so
you can ping it as often as you like. This is possible but is a not
insignificant amount of unnecessary work.
3) Use the yum-driven options and reduce the frequency of puppet-runs
to a few times per day in order to stay below the RedHat's abuse
threshold.
4) Use rpm -i exec's instead of the package provider.
While these workarounds are all feasible, none of them are nearly as
desirable as batched transactions that properly support circular
dependencies. I know Luke has also expressed his opinion that this is
an upstream problem that affects an insignificant number of users
(http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1935), but I would *really*
like to see this patch land. Between bugs 1935, 4893, 3156, 2198, and
this thread, it looks like at least 8 people have reported this
affecting them over the last two years. The batchable transactions
fix is straightforward, improves performance of puppet-runs, and has
no downside that has been discussed in its bug.
Cheers,
Mike Lococo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet
Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@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.
