- From: Kevin Keane Subscription <
- Subject: [chef] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update automagically if apt-get install fails
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:33:25 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sendgrid.info; h=subject :from:to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :sender; q=dns; s=smtpapi; b=ZgTZxLL1MC45XmXj29c94ReMjlRmCRB5xpM 2vVv6x5oWmz/sg2OjnALlC6VvJCXD+a92c01SnQ84psn2Suk/KYvE2sWezRQiMWd sEa0iOwMl1iWrmUHZFqf1AxJOhnk0NUZm4K0dr3vi3hw97B//tYZwDuqbeTYCdnG y8Kq5hpg=
I didn't follow this discussion from the start, just saw this. Forgive me if
I'm way off base here, but at first glance, this seems very wrong to me, the
"it just feels strange" type of wrong.
Isn't the philosophy of Chef that resources should describe the final,
desired, state of the system? This resource just feels "procedural" rather
Or am I way off on this?
From: Adam Jacob
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:13 AM
Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update
automagically if apt-get install fails
Why don't we make this a resource?
on_failure "run apt-get update" do
notifies :run, "execute[apt-get-update]"
Where match is a regular expression that looks for names of resources.
On 3/4/13 9:06 AM, "Bryan McLellan"
>On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jesse Campbell
>> What about extending the current handler approach? Add the ability to
>>catch a failed resource (by name) and retry it, just like you can
>>with a begin/rescue.
>I like the concept of having an exception handler be tied to a resource
>or provider, or at least be able to determine what resource or provider
>caused the exception, do some bits and retry.
- [chef] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update automagically if apt-get install fails, Kevin Keane Subscription, 03/04/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.