On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 05:58:34AM -0700, jcbollinger wrote: > That's actually kinda cool, but I think either you've missed the OP's > point, or I'm missing yours. Declaring the package for only auditing > should indeed support any Puppet relationships with that resource without > forcing the package to be installed, but how does it achieve the main > objective of conditionally managing a file depending on whether the package > is installed? As far as I can tell, relationships in general cannot > address this problem. Am I missing something? > > > John >
Nope, I did not read the question carefully enough. So as you already mentioned a custom fact should do the trick. But it general determining the desired state (that's what puppet tries to enforce) by looking at the current state (is the package installed?) may not be the best design here. So why not finding out when the package needs to be installed (e.g. because application X needs mysql) and then enforce that rule by puppet? -Stefan -- 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.
