I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ? David
On 16 June , 2007, at 24:34, David Lutterkort wrote:> I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) > box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a > requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ? > > DavidIf it doesn''t break things, maybe there''s a "suggested" or "recommended"?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:34:12PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:> I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) > box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a > requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ?The only problem with pulling in redhat-lsb is that you end up with cups (which in turn pulls in glib,X11 libs and others) so some people might not like this. This also asks the question what other requirements do we want to add? Both facter and puppet can use a number of libs/commands if they are available and the list is only going to grow in the future. Since rpm lacks a "suggests" option and adding requirements for everything isn''t a good idea we should probably start thinking about adding extra (possibly) virtual rpms. For example something like puppet-server-dbsupport to pull in activerecord or puppet-foobar to add requirements that the foobar provider needs. Kostas Georgiou
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 20:29 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:34:12PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) > > box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a > > requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ? > > The only problem with pulling in redhat-lsb is that you end up with > cups (which in turn pulls in glib,X11 libs and others) so some people > might not like this.Ugh .. yeah, I had completely forgotten about that can of worms.> This also asks the question what other requirements do we want to add? > Both facter and puppet can use a number of libs/commands if they are > available and the list is only going to grow in the future. Since rpm > lacks a "suggests" option and adding requirements for everything isn''t > a good idea we should probably start thinking about adding extra > (possibly) virtual rpms. For example something like > puppet-server-dbsupport to pull in activerecord or puppet-foobar to add > requirements that the foobar provider needs.Yeah, that''s probably the best option (though, isn''t that what a config mgmt system is for ;) David
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:01 -0400, Benjamin C. Kite wrote:> On 16 June , 2007, at 24:34, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) > > box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a > > requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ? > > > > David > > If it doesn''t break things, maybe there''s a "suggested" or > "recommended"?Unfortunately, not in the rpm shipped with most distros. David
On 16/06/07, Kostas Georgiou <k.georgiou@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:34:12PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > I just realized that if you don''t have redhat-lsb on your (Fedora 7) > > box, all those lsb* facts don''t show up. Should I make redhat-lsb a > > requirement for the facter rpm to guard against that ? > > The only problem with pulling in redhat-lsb is that you end up with > cups (which in turn pulls in glib,X11 libs and others) so some people > might not like this.I would definitely consider this sort of dependency to be wrong. We shouldn''t install packages just so we can produce facts that require them :)> This also asks the question what other requirements do we want to add? > Both facter and puppet can use a number of libs/commands if they are > available and the list is only going to grow in the future. Since rpm > lacks a "suggests" option and adding requirements for everything isn''t > a good idea we should probably start thinking about adding extra > (possibly) virtual rpms. For example something like > puppet-server-dbsupport to pull in activerecord or puppet-foobar to add > requirements that the foobar provider needs.Specifically regarding facter, I think it should just deal gracefully with the fact that these things are not available. Otherwise you''d end up with lots of really tiny facter packages. G
On Jun 18, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Graham Bleach wrote:> Specifically regarding facter, I think it should just deal gracefully > with the fact that these things are not available. Otherwise you''d end > up with lots of really tiny facter packages.It does deal gracefully, it''s just that people often don''t realize what facts they could have if only they installed X package or whatever. Looks like Facter needs the Provider commands from Puppet, so that the required binaries could be introspected and documented. I''ve been thinking it''s time for a 2.0 in Facter anyway -- I''ve got quite a few things I''d like to get done there. -- Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. -- H. L. Mencken --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On 18/06/07, Luke Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:> On Jun 18, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Graham Bleach wrote: > > > Specifically regarding facter, I think it should just deal gracefully > > with the fact that these things are not available. Otherwise you''d end > > up with lots of really tiny facter packages. > > It does deal gracefully, it''s just that people often don''t realize > what facts they could have if only they installed X package or whatever.Sorry, should have made it clear that graceful behaviour was the status quo ;-) G