On Jan 18, 5:52 am, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/17/2012 04:11 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > > > The first is simpler only if you get lucky, and you don't intend to > > modify your manifests ever again. > > basically correct, but you can even play it safe: You must make sure > each and every invocation of the resource in question is protected by > such an if defined(), ever.
And in that case you must also make sure that the package is defined with the same parameters everywhere, and that it stays that way. > Yes, it's terrible design. Indeed. Even for a one-off it's more complicated to use the conditional approach correctly than to just put the package definition in a class. > Is there a good reason that this function is even retained in recent > versions of puppet? I have yet to encounter an instance where it can be > used cleanly. I assume the function remains for backwards compatibility. That's a pretty strong motivation for keeping it, but the function could at least be deprecated. John -- 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.
