As promised, I''m trying to extra more data out of Puppet''s internals, and this is one I''ve been wanting to do ever since I developed the idea of provider suitability. I''ve created new type of ''reference'' (although it''s more of a report than a reference) that can tell you which providers are functional on the current platform, and for those that aren''t, it''ll say why. Here''s what the report shows on my OS X desktop: http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/ProviderSuitabilityReportTest I''m thinking that we could have a main "Platform Support" page, where we''d point to one of these reports for everything we could get. That way, instead of people asking what kind of support Puppet has, we can just point to the reports, which should provide a real answer. Things can get somewhat murky in some cases -- e.g., I''ve got darwinports neé macports installed on this box, so it shows up as a suitable provider, which wouldn''t necessarily be the case for a random OS X. Any recommendations on how to solve that? Maybe allow people to modify the reports before sending in or something? Anyone want to take charge of maintaining this list, including vetting incoming reports? Should I set up the report so it can email someone (e.g., docs@reductivelabs.com), and then put the reports online from there, so we have some quality control and so it''s easy to do? I also figured maybe we should clearly indicate whether a given type has any functional providers -- some big black mark in the title or something, so it''s immediately clear whether Puppet supports that type on your platform. I thought about just tacking ''(non- functional)'', but I don''t think that term is right -- maybe "(unsupported)"? I thought about leaving out the feature list, but I think feature lists that a provider has can change -- e.g., useradd can manage passwords as long as the Shadow library is installed. Other comments? -- If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee -- that will do them in. -- Bradley''s Bromide --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On May 8, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:> As promised, I''m trying to extra more data out of Puppet''s internals, > and this is one I''ve been wanting to do ever since I developed the > idea of provider suitability. > > I''ve created new type of ''reference'' (although it''s more of a report > than a reference) that can tell you which providers are functional on > the current platform, and for those that aren''t, it''ll say why.Apparently this wasn''t clear in my initial email -- you can get this report by just running ''puppetdoc -r providers''. That''ll print to stdout, which you can easily redirect to a file and post in Trac, for instance. -- I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they''ve always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Luke Kanies wrote:> As promised, I''m trying to extra more data out of Puppet''s internals, > and this is one I''ve been wanting to do ever since I developed the > idea of provider suitability.Yay :) Bonus points for better docs! Attached a report from my sid workstation.> I''ve created new type of ''reference'' (although it''s more of a report > than a reference) that can tell you which providers are functional on > the current platform, and for those that aren''t, it''ll say why. > Here''s what the report shows on my OS X desktop: > > http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/ProviderSuitabilityReportTest > > I''m thinking that we could have a main "Platform Support" page, where > we''d point to one of these reports for everything we could get. That > way, instead of people asking what kind of support Puppet has, we can > just point to the reports, which should provide a real answer. > > Things can get somewhat murky in some cases -- e.g., I''ve got > darwinports neé macports installed on this box, so it shows up as a > suitable provider, which wouldn''t necessarily be the case for a > random OS X. Any recommendations on how to solve that? Maybe allow > people to modify the reports before sending in or something?The wiki should probably collect reports from "default installs". That''s why I wouldn''t post my report there: my workstation is anything but default.> I also figured maybe we should clearly indicate whether a given type > has any functional providers -- some big black mark in the title or > something, so it''s immediately clear whether Puppet supports that > type on your platform. I thought about just tacking ''(non- > functional)'', but I don''t think that term is right -- maybe > "(unsupported)"?"Wanting an implementation" ;)> I thought about leaving out the feature list, but I think feature > lists that a provider has can change -- e.g., useradd can manage > passwords as long as the Shadow library is installed. > > Other comments?One info I was missing: which of the providers is choosen as default? Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15 _______________________________________________ Puppet-users mailing list Puppet-users@madstop.com https://mail.madstop.com/mailman/listinfo/puppet-users
On May 9, 2007, at 1:40 AM, David Schmitt wrote:> > Yay :) Bonus points for better docs! Attached a report from my sid > workstation.That''s my goal, although I think it''s going to need some significant management on the wiki to keep things in order.> The wiki should probably collect reports from "default installs". > That''s why I > wouldn''t post my report there: my workstation is anything but default.Well, either default installs or with a puppet manifest to get you there. :)>> I also figured maybe we should clearly indicate whether a given type >> has any functional providers -- some big black mark in the title or >> something, so it''s immediately clear whether Puppet supports that >> type on your platform. I thought about just tacking ''(non- >> functional)'', but I don''t think that term is right -- maybe >> "(unsupported)"? > > "Wanting an implementation" ;)That''s a good point -- it''d be much better to be positive here and make it clear it could be supported with not much effort.> One info I was missing: which of the providers is choosen as default?Ah, you''re right; I forgot that bit. -- What''s the good of having mastery over cosmic balance and knowing the secrets of fate if you can''t blow something up? -- Terry Pratchett, "Reaper Man" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com