Closed thekad closed 13 years ago
Seems like a sensible use case. I'm open to merging if you make the change I noted.
I agree, however the "in" syntax is not available until 0.26, that's why I didn't use it (0.25 is stock in Ubuntu, debian and fedora iirc) On Aug 4, 2011 11:21 PM, "plathrop" < reply@reply.github.com> wrote:
Seems like a sensible use case. I'm open to merging if you make the change I noted.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/plathrop/puppet-module-supervisor/pull/4#issuecomment-1733263
Damn you, thekad, I hate when you are right. Will merge tomorrow. On Aug 4, 2011 11:38 PM, "thekad" < reply@reply.github.com> wrote:
I agree, however the "in" syntax is not available until 0.26, that's why I didn't use it (0.25 is stock in Ubuntu, debian and fedora iirc) On Aug 4, 2011 11:21 PM, "plathrop" < reply@reply.github.com> wrote:
Seems like a sensible use case. I'm open to merging if you make the change I noted.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/plathrop/puppet-module-supervisor/pull/4#issuecomment-1733263
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/plathrop/puppet-module-supervisor/pull/4#issuecomment-1733333
So this change (from my limited testing):
Let me explain a bit:
Sometimes you want your services configuration to be controlled by puppet, whereas you don't want your services state to be controlled by puppet. If you want puppet to manage supervisor services as any other init.d service, just use "ensure => running" or "ensure => stopped". However, if you want puppet to leave your supervisor service stopped if you stopped it manually, don't do anything: defaults to "present" and so the service is not created.
Thoughts?