I have just made my first attempt at using a module from puppetforge, so this is probably a newbie question. I used the puppet module tool to grab the camptocamp-apt module, it created a directory called "camptocamp-apt" with the structure expected for a module. However, the only way I could get the module to work was to rename it to simply "apt". My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not allowing this? -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Hello,> My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the > author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong > or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not > allowing this?This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from the forge before using them ? Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ? Marc -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 à 09:18 +0200, Marc Fournier a écrit :> Hello, > > > My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the > > author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong > > or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not > > allowing this? > > This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". > You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... > > Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge > namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from > the forge before using them ? > > Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ?I''d personnaly suggests to continue working this way, because then : - you have to read (and understand) the module before using it - you can easily compare modules - you don''t want to overwrite an existing module - nor mess up your module dir - mv is not so difficult to use :) Regards, Nico.
a lame solution, but usable - have a link from /etc/puppet/<env>/modelname to the forge dl location? (excluding the unwanted name of course) On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Marc Fournier <marc.fournier@camptocamp.com>wrote:> Hello, > > > My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the > > author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong > > or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not > > allowing this? > > This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". > You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... > > Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge > namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from > the forge before using them ? > > Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ? > > Marc > > > -- > 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Marc Fournier <marc.fournier@camptocamp.com> wrote:> Hello, > >> My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the >> author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong >> or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not >> allowing this? > > This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". > You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... > > Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge > namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from > the forge before using them ? > > Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ? > > MarcThe intent is to have the modules downloaded from the module tool, as with RPM, though obviously if you grab them via the download button they can be named whatever they like. I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are named after what they are in forge. (It seems we should be making a better note of that in the instructions for the module tool.) --Michael -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On 6/7/2010 2:51 PM, Michael DeHaan wrote:> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Marc Fournier > <marc.fournier@camptocamp.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the >>> author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong >>> or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not >>> allowing this? >> >> This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". >> You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... >> >> Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge >> namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from >> the forge before using them ? >> >> Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ? >> >> Marc > > The intent is to have the modules downloaded from the module tool, as > with RPM, though obviously if you grab them via the download button > they can be named whatever they like. > > I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are > named after what they are in forge. > > (It seems we should be making a better note of that in the > instructions for the module tool.)Wouldn''t that break autoloading, if say the "apache" class is stored in $moduledir/DavidSchmitt-apache ? Or are you suggesting that the class should also be called "DavidSchmitt-apache"? I can see the benefits of the latter (regarding namespacing and such), but I suspect I should quickly change my moniker on the forge if that''s the case :-) Best Regards, David -- dasz.at OG Tel: +43 (0)664 2602670 Web: http://dasz.at Klosterneuburg UID: ATU64260999 FB-Nr.: FN 309285 g FB-Gericht: LG Korneuburg -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, David Schmitt <david@dasz.at> wrote:> On 6/7/2010 2:51 PM, Michael DeHaan wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Marc Fournier >> <marc.fournier@camptocamp.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> My question is this. Are the modules intended to be used with the >>>> author-modulename naming convention? If so, did I do something wrong >>>> or is there something wrong with the camptocamp-apt module that is not >>>> allowing this? >>>> >>> >>> This module was indeed made to be used as "apt" not "camptocamp-apt". >>> You raise an interesting question, which I''m not sure of the answer... >>> >>> Should module authors modify their modules to match the forge >>> namespace ? Or is it expected that users rename modules downloaded from >>> the forge before using them ? >>> >>> Does anyone have an idea of right the way to do this ? >>> >>> Marc >>> >> >> The intent is to have the modules downloaded from the module tool, as >> with RPM, though obviously if you grab them via the download button >> they can be named whatever they like. >> >> I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are >> named after what they are in forge. >> >> (It seems we should be making a better note of that in the >> instructions for the module tool.) >> > > > Wouldn''t that break autoloading, if say the "apache" class is stored in > $moduledir/DavidSchmitt-apache ? Or are you suggesting that the class should > also be called "DavidSchmitt-apache"? > > I can see the benefits of the latter (regarding namespacing and such), but > I suspect I should quickly change my moniker on the forge if that''s the case > :-) >I would prefer shortname, let puppet fail when there are collisions. Or maybe initials could be used for namespacing. ds_apache (tough luck Danielle Steel)> > > Best Regards, David > -- > dasz.at OG Tel: +43 (0)664 2602670 Web: http://dasz.at > Klosterneuburg UID: ATU64260999 > > FB-Nr.: FN 309285 g FB-Gericht: LG Korneuburg > > > -- > 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
> I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are > named after what they are in forge.I don''t think this is a good idea, if I''ve understood it fully. IHMO, modules in the forge should be, in the long term, interoperable and possible interchangeable. I should "include apache" in my nodes, as always, whatever the apache module is, and I think it''s really a bad thing to be have something like "include example42-apache" and then be forced to change that on all my nodes (and all the references/requires to it) when I want to switch to the apache module of someone else. But most of all, I agree with what David says about autoloading. I find absurd the idea of having classes called with the name of the author and not the sole name of the application. Ready to change my opinion, still, if given some good motivations. my cent al -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
----- "Al @ Lab42" <lab42.it@gmail.com> a écrit : | > I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are | > named after what they are in forge. | | I don''t think this is a good idea, if I''ve understood it fully. | | IHMO, modules in the forge should be, in the long term, interoperable | and possible interchangeable. | | I should "include apache" in my nodes, as always, whatever the apache | module is, and I think it''s really a bad thing to be have something | like "include example42-apache" and then be forced to change that on | all my nodes (and all the references/requires to it) when I want to | switch to the apache module of someone else. | | But most of all, I agree with what David says about autoloading. | I find absurd the idea of having classes called with the name of the | author and not the sole name of the application. +1, definitely Nico. -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
> > I would prefer shortname, let puppet fail when there are collisions. Or > maybe initials could be used for namespacing. ds_apache (tough luck Danielle > Steel) > >>Let''s think about how the package manager''s do it as this is essentially a (really really primitive) package manager. Hmm, they don''t do it :) Point. FWIW, in this case, the download path of the module (from pmt) needs to be somehow indicated to be "apache" and not "foo-apache", so it''s still a case of needing to know what to save it when downloading directly from the webapp, right? And pmt needs to know to name it "apache". So there''s still something that we need to tweak, it seems. --Michael -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Nicolas Szalay wrote:> ----- "Al @ Lab42" <lab42.it@gmail.com> a écrit : > > | > I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are > | > named after what they are in forge. > | > | I don''t think this is a good idea, if I''ve understood it fully. > | > | IHMO, modules in the forge should be, in the long term, interoperable > | and possible interchangeable. > | > | I should "include apache" in my nodes, as always, whatever the apache > | module is, and I think it''s really a bad thing to be have something > | like "include example42-apache" and then be forced to change that on > | all my nodes (and all the references/requires to it) when I want to > | switch to the apache module of someone else. > | > | But most of all, I agree with what David says about autoloading. > | I find absurd the idea of having classes called with the name of the > | author and not the sole name of the application.This is the model we''re going for ... The next update will address this issue and specify that module is called by the sole name of the application/function. Regards James Turnbull -- 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.