It was a sorta late-night conversation on IRC, and I was the proponent of inheriting from the base providers, but I don't feel super strongly that it's the right path. Conversation started here:
https://botbot.me/freenode/puppet/2014-12-15/?msg=27586083&page=4 --eric0 On Monday, December 15, 2014 2:01:19 PM UTC-8, Felix Frank wrote: > > On 12/15/2014 10:18 AM, eric gisse wrote: > > I'm opening this up to thoughts on how to do PUP-3765 > <https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PUP-3765> properly. Am I going in > the right direction or is there a better way? > > Note: stuff like separate providers was discussed and I hate it deeply due > to maintainability/usability concerns. Keeping it in the provider feels > like the way to go, I'm just having a bit of an issue with a proper > implementation. > > > Hi, > > where was this discussed? The ticket has no comments and no links. > > A separate set of providers seems undesirable to me as well. We would be > looking at a) lots of code duplication or b) a layer of inheritance that > serves a pretty weak purpose. > > The question of "is SELinux enabled or not" is independent of "which tool > chain should be used to manage OS services". Anyway, I see no reason why > anyone would not want any given provider to Just Work, SELinux or not. > > What is your implementation's approach and what issues are you facing? > > Thanks, > Felix > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/8b446cfb-7c67-4df2-a573-51466cd2363f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
