Hi John
On 14/06/2013, at 12:06 AM, jcbollinger wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:15:22 AM UTC-5, Tom Lanyon wrote:
>> On 05/06/2013, at 11:51 PM, jcbollinger [...] wrote:
>> > I don't much like that general approach in the first place on account
Hi John,
Sorry for the delayed reply.
On 05/06/2013, at 11:51 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I should have been clearer that this occurs when Package[package-434]
>> IS declared elsewhere. "!defined(Package[package-434])" therefore is false,
>> so just by referencing the existing declarat
Hi John,
Thanks for the reply.
On 05/06/2013, at 12:33 AM, jcbollinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 1:22:08 AM UTC-5, Tom Lanyon wrote:
> I'm testing a 'cleanup' stage which runs after Stage[main] and removes a
> bunch of package resources.
>
> To do t
I'm testing a 'cleanup' stage which runs after Stage[main] and removes a bunch
of package resources.
To do this, I tried a simple check of defined(Package[]) combined with a
custom facter fact (called 'app_packages'):
> class app::package::cleaner {
>
> define check_and_remove {
> if !de
