Issue #3000 has been reported by Markus Roberts.
----------------------------------------
Refactor #3000: Normalize package providers' treatment of absent packages
http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3000
Author: Markus Roberts
Status: Unreviewed
Priority: Normal
Assigned to:
Category: package
Target version: 0.25.3
Affected version: 0.25.1
Branch:
It appears that there is no consensus on how package providers should deal with
an attempt to query an absent package.
At present:
* *bsd
propogate error or return nil
* appdmg, apple, pkgdmg no tool call (direct file system check), so not
directly analogous
return nil
* blastwave:
Puppet.warning "Cannot match %s" % line
return {:ensure => :absent}
* darwin port:
raise Puppet::DevError,"Failed to match dpkg line %s" % line
* dpkg:
return {:ensure => :purged, :status => 'missing', :name =>
@resource[:name], :error => 'ok'}
* gem
Puppet.warning "Could not match %s" % desc
return nil
* hpux
return {:ensure => :absent}
* portage:
raise Puppet::Error.new("No package found with the specified name
[#{not_found_value}]")
* ports, rpm, rug, up2date, urpmi, yum
return nil
The most popular answer is to return nil (which could manifest an analog of
#2940); the second most popular is raising/propagating an error (which is
#2999). I think my favorite would be {:ensure => :absent} but I'm unclear why
this isn't being done more often.
--
You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it,
or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here:
http://reductivelabs.com/redmine/my/account
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Bugs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
