> This is really weird. It seems I can say the most absurd things today and > people will take me quite seriously. If only I could figure out to harness > this new found power... >
Are you certain that you're not the one taking my joke seriously? > That's why I'm suggesting we provide some way of indicating which files we > consider "managed" for the purpose of this ral operation; either that or we > should eliminate the analogous functionality of "ralsh host", "ralsh user", > "ralsh package" etc. > We don't, yet, have a persistent notion of "managed" - it only exists for the duration of a puppet run. I'd like to see that change, but it's beyond the scope of this bug. > > My objection is to the rule being "we can discover resources unless there > might be more than some arbitrary number of them in which we get serious > about not talking about unmanaged resources." Or, to put it another way, > how would you feel if the find command refused to enumerate all the files on > your system because there might be too many of them? > We already make judgment calls what to list or not, based upon some intuition of "usefulness". It would be possible for "ralsh package" to list all **absent** packages that are listed in your repository, but instead it only lists things that have been installed. Until we expand ralsh to take parameters, I think that the only useful behaviors for `ralsh file` are "not implemented" or "files in the root directory" -- 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.
