From: Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:27:11 -0500
Local: Sun, May 25 2008 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Puppet Users] Re: puppet thinks yum fails when it doesn't
On May 24, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:19:26PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > I am seeing this on both CentOS 4.4 and 5.1. >> I don't >> There's also some confusion in my head (and the code) as to what the > That code confuses me, too. It's a little unclear to me how this is description will help with understanding the situation and why the information you're getting isn't as good as it could be. Also, note that you can download the 'puppetdoc' executable and run it http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/ProviderSuitabilityReport The 'confine' system for determining which providers are functional * exists: Whether a file exits You can see that if these tests fail, then we can easily log what's * true: Whether a value is true This would be used for things like what the ldap providers now do: confine :false => (Puppet[:ldapuser] == "") I.e., this ldap provider is only functional if the ldapuser setting You can see that it would be essentially impossible to usefully log I recognize the pain of this, and I've just entirely refactored the For instance, I upgraded the facter test so it can now test both facts confine :ldapport => "389" This still doesn't work for my above test, because I need to test a The next step would be allow for inclusion of a string that describes confine "Missing X file" => { :true => FileTest.exist?("/my/file") } I don't really know what the right interface is. If someone's willing to go through the existing confines and play with -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||