I'd like to see this patch included in the next testing/release cycle, and
the code looks okay, but it's going to need unit tests for the new
functionality. Would you be interested in writing those?

~Jesse Wolfe

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:19 AM, James Cammarata <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:47:02 -0600, James Cammarata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I started looking into finishing this patch
> > http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/2043, which apparently was
> never
> > completed or included.  I got it working, with one caveat: it doesn't
> > install an RPM if one with the same name but different arch is installed.
>
> > For example, I can install libacl.i386 specifically, but not if
> > libacl.x86_64 is installed.
> >
> > I think the issue is in provider/package.rb, in properties().  Earlier,
> in
> > self.prefetch() the information about all installed packages is grabbed,
> so
> > in properties() it passes the first if test because some package is
> > installed with that name.  So it looks like for this to work properly,
> it'd
> > be a bit more of an invasive change, which would have to be done in
> rpm.rb
> > so that all RPM derivatives would pay attention to arch.  I'm still new
> to
> > ruby and puppet, so maybe I'm missing an easier way to do this.
> >
> > Any thoughts and/or suggestions?
>
> I think I got it figured out, just quit trying to go down a bad path.  I
> believe I've taken the original suggestion to put the arch values in an
> array even further: with my patch the compatible archs are pulled from the
> "rpm --showrc" command itself, so there's no hard-coding of values at all.
>
> I corrected one thing in rpm.rb, which I feel is an error.  If an empty
> string is passed to the nevra_to_hash() function, the resulting hash
> returned had "-" set for the ensure field, which is incorrect.  I added a
> quick check at the top of the function after the strip() to return the
> empty hash in this case (which causes package.rb to set the ensure field to
> absent, as it should).
>
> Comments/suggestions/criticisms always welcome.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<puppet-dev%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Developers" 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-dev?hl=en.

Reply via email to