Well, I'm certainly a fan.
Now, we just need some upstream traction.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Drew Blessing wrote:
> I think that sounds like a great way to approach the issue, Trevor.
> Adrien, what do you think?
>
> FWIW, I just encountered this issue for the second time in a week. I
I think that sounds like a great way to approach the issue, Trevor. Adrien,
what do you think?
FWIW, I just encountered this issue for the second time in a week. I
suspect this trend will continue. We are finally getting comfortable with
custom types/providers and want to build providers to int
Week of March 3rd, 2014
** Next PR Triage Wednesday, March 12th @ 10:00 am Pacific. **
*Priorities*
Planning
PE 3.2
Puppet 3.5.0
Facter 2.0.1
Windows ACLs
Azure Demo support
*Commentary*
We had our remote team members in Portland, which was a real treat, and
allowed us to do some planning. For
It's just this one, as far as I know.
I would like to see the RAL updated, but I'd like this fix in Puppet 3 and
the RAL update in Puppet 4/5/whatever.
Trevor
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Drew Blessing wrote:
> Unless you can definitively say that making major changes in the RAL to
> addr
Unless you can definitively say that making major changes in the RAL to
address this issue is slated for the near future (say, late 3.x release or
first 4.x release), I'd say the individual fix for package type is
warranted in the meantime. Are there any other types that you think people
are ha
My concern with this solution is that it's a one time shim for a single
type. Granted, it may work and could solve this particular problem. However
I think this is a flaw in the RAL that has a number of touch points that
also need to be fixed. This might be me being too idealistic but I think
that
That would technically also solve the problem. There would just have to be
an additional validation step to make sure that the keys in the resource
are unique.
I wonder if all resources could be changed to more of a DB-style key model
where you could denote specific attributes as your unique key s
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 11:24:07 AM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>
> How does 'exec' do it?
>
>
Exec doesn't do it. What Exec does (or did -- I am having trouble finding
mention of it in the current docs), is to allow the title / command to be
duplicated without restriction, regardless of
I agree, it seems like this solution would be simple and effective. I am
almost positive there are other types that behave this way. It breaks
nothing and fixes everything, as far as I can see.
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:48:21 PM UTC-6, Pedro Côrte-Real wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:15
The first version would work if packages were implemented with composite
namevars (which they're not). However, it's ugly and shouldn't be necessary
in this case.
The second version should work no matter what but causes confusion when
trying to do any type of resource dependency chaining.
You'd e
On 2014-03-09 21:10, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
Oh, no, this works perfectly.
Seems like I have some reading to do, or, see below.
I just *hate* having to stuff all of
that into the name. It makes the hash of options completely
pointless.
I want the name/title to be arbitrary and the rest to "
11 matches
Mail list logo
