On Feb 13, 4:58 pm, Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > G'day. > > We recently found some issues with the `links => follow` setting in > recursive file copying; the designed behaviour is that it should allow > you to determine if the master serves a symlink in a module as a > symlink, or as the content of the file that the symlink points to. > > The full details are here:https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/12418 > > The short version is that toggling that value doesn't work right - it > won't notice changes from "don't follow" to "follow". > > Our general feeling is that putting a symlink in a module, and > expecting the same symlink to be created on the agent, is a bad > strategy. It depends heavily on a whole lot of complex things, adds > substantial complexity to the file serving code, and won't work on all > platforms in a sensible fashion.
There seems to be considerable confusion, or at least imprecision, in the description of the issue here, in the discussion in the bug database, and in the survey. As I understand it, the issue is not with "putting a symlink in a module" but rather with recursively managing a directory tree that contains symlinks. Modules appear to have nothing to do with it -- it's all about the behavior of the File resource type. Inasmuch as I am not 100% certain that I have parsed that all out correctly, however, I am confident that others will be confused, too. For the discussion and survey to be meaningful, the terms and questions need to be clear. That will also better inform whoever ends up picking up the resulting programming task, whatever that task ends up being. John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
