----- "Jeff McCune" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think this is something that is really becoming an issue with the
> increasing number of modules published to the Forge. Modules need some
> way to satisfy their dependencies on other modules, and the current
> behavior of include just doesn't seem to cut it.
>
>
> What about include ::localyumrepository ?
>
>
> It's valid syntax in 0.24.9, 0.25.5, and 2.6.0
>
>
> And... Believe it or not, it actually already does almost exactly what
> I want it to do in 2.6, except I think I found a bug in 2.6.
>
>
> Here's my test manifest:
> #
>
> class leaf { notify { "leaf": } }
> class baseone {
> Notify { message => "baseone" }
> notify { "baseone": }
> include ::leaf
> }
> class basetwo {
> Notify { message => "basetwo" }
> notify { "basetwo": }
> include ::leaf
> }
> include baseone, basetwo
> # include basetwo, baseone
>
>
> Here's the result in 0.25.5 and 0.24.9:
>
> notice: baseone
> notice: //baseone/Notify[baseone]/message: defined 'message' as
> 'baseone'
> notice: baseone
> notice: //baseone/leaf/Notify[leaf]/message: defined 'message' as
> 'baseone'
> notice: basetwo
> notice: //basetwo/Notify[basetwo]/message: defined 'message' as
> 'basetwo'
>
>
> Notice how Notify[leaf]'s scope is within baseone, which was the first
> class to include it.
>
>
> Now, for the pleasant surprise: (in 2.6.0)
>
> notice: basetwo
> notice: /Stage[main]/Basetwo/Notify[basetwo]/message: defined
> 'message' as 'basetwo'
> notice: baseone
> notice: /Stage[main]/Leaf/Notify[leaf]/message: defined 'message' as
> 'baseone'
> notice: baseone
> notice: /Stage[main]/Baseone/Notify[baseone]/message: defined
> 'message' as 'baseone'
>
>
> It *appears* Notify[leaf] is not within the scope of Baseone or
> Basetwo, however it's still getting the default value of the message
> parameter from the baseone class... Flipping in the order around to
> include basetwo, baseone we get:
>
> notice: /Stage[main]/Leaf/Notify[leaf]/message: defined 'message' as
> 'basetwo'
>
>
> Again, it looks like the class is included into top scope, but the
> behavior is that we're still getting resource defaults from basetwo's
> scope.
>
>
> Thoughts? Am I insane for wanting include ::leaf to place Leaf at top
> scope?
I think so :) ::topclass isnt about scope its about resolution? I never
considered it would have scope implications.
Only time you tend to see it is in:
class monitor { }
class foo::monitor { }
class foo::bar { include ::monitor }
to include class monitor and not foo::monitor, you wouldnt want that to do
weird scope things
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" 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-users?hl=en.
