Jira (PUP-1073) Common package name in two different providers

Andy Parker (JIRA) Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:24:45 -0700

Title: Message Title

Andy Parker commented on an issue

After a long, drawn out battle of emails, the thread on puppet-dev has reached a conclusion about how to tackle this problem.

Charlie Sharpsteen discovered that we can use the provider + title_patterns to generate a uniqueness_key that allows for the behavior that is needed. He spiked a patch that we can use as the basis for the work.

This change resolves example #1 by using the combination of [name, provider] to enforce uniqueness, instead of the current [name]. The following clash would no longer be possible:
    # Composite key: ['foo', 'gem']
    package { 'foo-gem': name => 'foo', ensure => '1.0', provider => 'gem' }
 
    # Same composite key: ['foo', 'gem']
    package { 'gem-foo': name => 'foo', ensure => '2.0', provider => 'gem' }
Example #2 is also resolved:
    # Composite key: ['httpd-server', nil]
    package { 'httpd-server': ensure => '2.4.0' }
 
    # Same composite key: ['httpd-server', nil]
    package { 'web-server': name => 'httpd-server', ensure => '2.0.12' }
The possibility for conflict still exists between providers that happen to manage the same pool of packages and between implicit and explicit use of the default provider. For example, the following will result in competing resources on RedHat:
    # Composite key: ['httpd-server', nil]
    package { 'httpd-server': ensure => installed }
 
    # Composite key: ['httpd-server', 'yum']
    package { 'httpd': ensure => absent, name => 'httpd-server', provider => 'yum' }
 
    # Composite key: ['httpd-server', 'rpm']
    package { 'webserver': ensure => '2.4.0', name => 'httpd-server', provider => 'rpm' }
So, a composite key does not provide an airtight guarantee of uniqueness but is better than dropping isomorphism. We may be able to improve this situation by turning missing composite key values into smart defaults when the agent prepares a catalog for application.

Add Comment

Puppet /

PUP-1073

I have a common package name, that's in two different package managers
(one with yum the other with gem)

{code}
        package { "remove-mysql":
                name => "mysql",
                provider => "yum",
                ensure => absent,
        }
{code}
---------------------------------------------------------
{code}
        ...

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jira (PUP-1073) Common package name in two different providers

Reply via email to