Puppet users - Jan 2012 - Explanation of the resource package, little information in reference type

Hi everyone!!

I have a problem with the package resource. Currently all my nodes use
the same operating system, Debian.
The problem is that the documentation of Puppet are many variables
that are not explained in detail and have not found detailed
information on the Internet.
My problem comes in the form in which parcel puppet installed Debian,
I see in the trace log the command used is as follows:
"/usr/bin/apt-get -q -y -o DPkg::Options::=--force-confold install"
The option --force-confold or --force-confnew comes from the parameter
"configfile", until then I have it clear.
What I want is to add the option --force-yes to the command to force
the installation of the parcel.
Does anyone know which option I put in the resource package to appear
on the command --force-yes? It can be because the apt.rb resource in /
usr/lib/ruby/1.8/puppet/provider/package shows:
str = @resource[:name]
    case should
    when true, false, Symbol
      # pass
    else
      # Add the package version and --force-yes option
      str += "=#{should}"
      cmd << "--force-yes"
    end
And by the way, could you explain the options in the package?

Thank you very much for everything.
Best regards!

-- 
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.

Hi,

On 01/11/2012 12:19 PM, Antonio Xanxess wrote:
> What I want is to add the option --force-yes to the command to force
> the installation of the parcel.
when truly in this kind of pinch, I have used exec {} rather than
package {} in the past to supply this parameter.

It''s much better practice to tell puppet how to eliminate the root of
the problem so that you don''t need --force-yes in the first place.
What''s the specific issue in your case?

Cheers,
Felix

-- 
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.

Hi Frank,
Thanks for the reply, but in principle I think that there is no need
for this procedure because the resource itself package can do, besides
not a good practice to patch existing functionality.
The problem is that there is little documentation about it, I would
like someone who has dealt with these issues give me some light
because I''m quite lost, as I put in my previous post code level can
see that adding a parameter the resource package, but which is not,
other ideas?

Thanks for everything, a greeting!

On 11 ene, 13:07, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/11/2012 12:19 PM, Antonio Xanxess wrote:
>
> > What I want is to add the option --force-yes to the command to force
> > the installation of the parcel.
>
> when truly in this kind of pinch, I have used exec {} rather than
> package {} in the past to supply this parameter.
>
> It''s much better practice to tell puppet how to eliminate the root
of
> the problem so that you don''t need --force-yes in the first place.
> What''s the specific issue in your case?
>
> Cheers,
> Felix
-- 
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 01/13/2012 09:31 AM, Antonio Xanxess wrote:
> Hi Frank,
Actually it''s Felix :)
> Thanks for the reply, but in principle I think that there is no need
> for this procedure because the resource itself package can do, besides
> not a good practice to patch existing functionality.
Uhm, what? o_O

You talk about savaging the apt provider code to somehow include
--force-yes into the apt-get options, then point out how patching
existing functionality is bad practice? Huh.

Frankly, pushing a hacked apt provider to all your agents will be much
more invasive than falling back to a manifest-based workaround.

Regards,
Felix

-- 
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''m pretty sure he means that that code is already there (note:
currently too laz... euh busy to look that up), he just doesn''t know
how to make it apply.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:22, Felix Frank
<felix.frank@alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 09:31 AM, Antonio Xanxess wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>
> Actually it''s Felix :)
>
>> Thanks for the reply, but in principle I think that there is no need
>> for this procedure because the resource itself package can do, besides
>> not a good practice to patch existing functionality.
>
> Uhm, what? o_O
>
> You talk about savaging the apt provider code to somehow include
> --force-yes into the apt-get options, then point out how patching
> existing functionality is bad practice? Huh.
>
> Frankly, pushing a hacked apt provider to all your agents will be much
> more invasive than falling back to a manifest-based workaround.
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
> --
> 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.
>


-- 
Walter Heck

--
follow @walterheck on twitter to see what I''m up to!
--
Check out my new startup: Server Monitoring as a Service @ http://tribily.com
Follow @tribily on Twitter and/or ''Like'' our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/tribily

-- 
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.

Ups! Sorry Felix!! :P

I think there is a resource needed exec when the code shows that there
is a parameter for the --force-yes.
Anyway it is true that there is very little documentation on the
official website of puppet, if someone could give me some place where
there is more information I would appreciate that.
Felix, thank you very much for everything, I will consider your advice
if i finally do not get more information.

Regards and apologies for the error in the name before! : P

P.S: And sorry for the english, i use google translator :P

On 13 ene, 10:22, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 09:31 AM, Antonio Xanxess wrote:
>
> > Hi Frank,
>
> Actually it''s Felix :)
>
> > Thanks for the reply, but in principle I think that there is no need
> > for this procedure because the resource itself package can do, besides
> > not a good practice to patch existing functionality.
>
> Uhm, what? o_O
>
> You talk about savaging the apt provider code to somehow include
> --force-yes into the apt-get options, then point out how patching
> existing functionality is bad practice? Huh.
>
> Frankly, pushing a hacked apt provider to all your agents will be much
> more invasive than falling back to a manifest-based workaround.
>
> Regards,
> Felix
-- 
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 01/13/2012 11:05 AM, Walter Heck wrote:
> I''m pretty sure he means that that code is already there (note:
> currently too laz... euh busy to look that up), he just doesn''t
know
> how to make it apply.
Oh, I see.

Apologies to the OP then, got that totally the wrong way.

I''ve taken a quick look. --force-yes is set *only* if you ensure a
specific version of a package, i.e. you tell puppet to install that very
version.
It''s not meant to allow you to force installation of just any package.

In fact, there is no interface to make apt-get use this parameter, which
explains why there is no documentation on it, either.

Again: What problem are you trying to solve?

HTH,
Felix

-- 
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.

Hi Felix,
You''ve finally found the problem. Indeed you were right, it was no
problem of the resource package, had a problem with DNS name
resolution prevented our local repository.
Currently we solve this, so thank you very much for the help offered.

A new greeting and apologies for the inconvenience.

On 13 ene, 12:34, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 11:05 AM, Walter Heck wrote:
>
> > I''m pretty sure he means that that code is already there
(note:
> > currently too laz... euh busy to look that up), he just
doesn''t know
> > how to make it apply.
>
> Oh, I see.
>
> Apologies to the OP then, got that totally the wrong way.
>
> I''ve taken a quick look. --force-yes is set *only* if you ensure a
> specific version of a package, i.e. you tell puppet to install that very
> version.
> It''s not meant to allow you to force installation of just any
package.
>
> In fact, there is no interface to make apt-get use this parameter, which
> explains why there is no documentation on it, either.
>
> Again: What problem are you trying to solve?
>
> HTH,
> Felix
-- 
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.