* Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> [090701 18:01]:
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:19 AM, David Schmitt wrote:
>
> >
> > Luke Kanies wrote:
> >>> I can actually think of *two* new states that one might want: add to
> >>> fstab
> >>> and remount an existing mount with new flags, and add to fstab but
> >>> don't
> >>> touch an existing mount at all. One might for example want to have
> >>> a line
> >>> in fstab for a USB stick, which defaults to mounting read-only, but
> >>> if the
> >>> sysadmin wants to she can mount it read-write. If Puppet suddenly
> >>> remounts
> >>> it read-only, she might be a bit miffed...
> >>
> >> I'm fine with this, I think, although I actually really hate the
> >> 'enabled => true' stuff in services. I think I've come to the
> >> conclusion most parameters whose values are only true and false
> >> should
> >> probably be renamed. E.g., services should be enabled/disabled as
> >> values, although I don't know what the parameter name should be.
> >> Can't reuse 'ensure', of course.
> >>
> >> Maybe we could use ensure, but support multiple values? E.g., you
> >> could do:
> >>
> >> mount { foo:
> >> ensure => [present, mounted]
> >> }
> >>
> >> Would that be too confusing?
> >
> > I am often confused by service's ensure/enabled rift (i.e. forget to
> > set
> > the latter). I think I'd prefer this version.
> >
> > service:
> >
> > ensure => [ start_on_runlevel, running ]
> > ensure => [ no_start, stopped ]
> >
> > mount:
> >
> > ensure => present
> > ensure => [ present, remount_only ]
> > ensure => [ present, unmounted ]
> > ensure => [ present, ignore_mount ]
> >
> > ensure => absent
> > ensure => [ absent, remount_only ] # doesn't make sense
> > ensure => [ absent, unmounted ]
> > ensure => [ absent, ignore_mount ]
>
> Any other opinions on this? It has real potential for confusion, but
> I think we could make it simple enough for the most common cases that
> people would be fine.
I only can support Davids proposal. It would make at least service
and mount resources way more descriptive and thus easier to understand.
Maybe also easier to write :-)
Maybe also don't do [ absent, mounted ], but [ configured, mounted ], so
it's even more clear what the author intended. 'present' and 'absent' are
too generic for such combined types.
Christian
--
christian hofstaedtler
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
