Puppet users - Oct 2007 - freebsd ports provider patch to use ports tree directly

The included patch is what I''ve been able to throw together in a few 
hours after studying the pkgtools code. All I''m using the library for
at
the moment is to resolve the proper base location of the ports tree, but 
at least by invoking make directly instead of through portupgrade it 
works *a lot* better.

Is there a proper way to include/require a third party ruby library? The 
way it is now, if ports.rb was invoked, puppetd will blow up. Is there 
some check somewhere to determine if portupgrade is installed?

-- 
Russell A. Jackson <raj@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield

Revolution, n:
	A form of government abroad.

Russell Jackson wrote:
> The included patch is what I''ve been able to throw together in a
few
> hours after studying the pkgtools code. All I''m using the library
for at
> the moment is to resolve the proper base location of the ports tree, but 
> at least by invoking make directly instead of through portupgrade it 
> works *a lot* better.
> 
> Is there a proper way to include/require a third party ruby library? The 
> way it is now, if ports.rb was invoked, puppetd will blow up. Is there 
> some check somewhere to determine if portupgrade is installed?
> 
It''d help if I attached it.

-- 
Russell A. Jackson <raj@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield

Revolution, n:
	A form of government abroad.


_______________________________________________
Puppet-users mailing list
Puppet-users@madstop.com
https://mail.madstop.com/mailman/listinfo/puppet-users

Russell Jackson wrote:
> The included patch is what I''ve been able to throw together in a
few
> hours after studying the pkgtools code. All I''m using the library
for at
> the moment is to resolve the proper base location of the ports tree, but 
> at least by invoking make directly instead of through portupgrade it 
> works *a lot* better.
> 
> Is there a proper way to include/require a third party ruby library? The 
> way it is now, if ports.rb was invoked, puppetd will blow up. Is there 
> some check somewhere to determine if portupgrade is installed?
> 
I meant to say that it would blow up if both portupgrade wasn''t 
installed and ports.rb was invoked.

-- 
Russell A. Jackson <raj@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield

Revolution, n:
	A form of government abroad.

On Sep 30, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Russell Jackson wrote:
> Is there a proper way to include/require a third party ruby  
> library? The
> way it is now, if ports.rb was invoked, puppetd will blow up. Is there
> some check somewhere to determine if portupgrade is installed?
Yeah -- define a feature in lib/puppet/features/, and then do:

   confine :true => Puppet.features.port_libs?

Is this really what you want, though, to make this provider only work  
if the library is available?

Shouldn''t you instead use that ability if it''s available,
otherwise
use the old stuff?

Also, can you attach your code to a ticket, rather than an email?

  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right
  in doing it.                   -- G. K. Chesterton
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com

Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Russell Jackson wrote:
> 
>> Is there a proper way to include/require a third party ruby  
>> library? The
>> way it is now, if ports.rb was invoked, puppetd will blow up. Is there
>> some check somewhere to determine if portupgrade is installed?
> 
> Yeah -- define a feature in lib/puppet/features/, and then do:
> 
>    confine :true => Puppet.features.port_libs?
> 
> Is this really what you want, though, to make this provider only work  
> if the library is available?
> 
> Shouldn''t you instead use that ability if it''s available,
otherwise
> use the old stuff?
The way things are now, puppet won''t use the ports provider unless
portupgrade is
installed. It probably would be better to degrade in functionality rather than
not work at
all. In that case, would I check for the library in the provider or would I
still use
lib/puppet/features?
> 
> Also, can you attach your code to a ticket, rather than an email?
> 
I was just kinda letting everyone know I was working on the problem. I
don''t think the
current patch is worthy of being considered for anything yet.

-- 
Russell A. Jackson <raj@csub.edu>
Network Analyst
California State University, Bakersfield

Life is an exciting business, and most
exciting when it is lived for others.


_______________________________________________
Puppet-users mailing list
Puppet-users@madstop.com
https://mail.madstop.com/mailman/listinfo/puppet-users

On Oct 1, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Russell Jackson wrote:
> The way things are now, puppet won''t use the ports provider unless
> portupgrade is
> installed. It probably would be better to degrade in functionality  
> rather than not work at
> all. In that case, would I check for the library in the provider or  
> would I still use
> lib/puppet/features?
You''d do both -- define the feature in lib/puppet/features, but check  
for it in the provider.

Your provider would be something like:

provide(:ports) do
   confine :true => Puppet.features.ports?
   ...
end
> I was just kinda letting everyone know I was working on the  
> problem. I don''t think the
> current patch is worthy of being considered for anything yet.
Ah, ok.  Thanks.

  --
  If all the world''s a stage, I want to operate the trap door.
          -- Paul Beatty
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com