On 04/19/2011 03:18 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 8:57 pm, Ian Mortimer <i.morti...@uq.edu.au> wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 23:22 +1000, jcbollinger wrote: >>> (I am fairly sure that >>> this is why the yum Package provider uses "rpm -e" instead of "yum >>> remove" in the first place.) >> >> Except that installing or removing packages with rpm is now deprecated: >> >> http://illiterat.livejournal.com/7834.html > > I can't read the article (livejournal is blocked here). > > The bottom line as far as our discussion goes, however, is that it is > *intentional* that the yum Package provider fails to remove packages > on which other installed packages depend, and that there is good > technical justification for that design choice. I would be surprised > if other Package providers were different in that regard. Your Puppet > manifests need to account for that, one way or another.
I disagree. First off, the apt provider *will* recursively uninstall depending packages. Second, this *is* sound design. If I tell puppet that I don't want package "X" on my system, I expect it to remove it and do whatever is necessary, except the provider's backend objects. It is your opinion that a package manager should object as soon as a depended package would be removed by an uninstallation. Myself, I don't want to be bothered with such details. I fully expect my package manager do care about all aspects of dependeny resolution, be it during installation or its opposite. Regards, Felix -- 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.
