[chef] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update automagically if apt-get install fails

[Kevin Keane Subscription < >]

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 
than "declarative".

Or am I way off on this?

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Jacob 
[mailto:
 
 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:13 AM
To: 

 
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?

package "totally-sucks-devel"

on_failure "run apt-get update" do
  match /^package/
  notifies :run, "execute[apt-get-update]"
end

Where match is a regular expression that looks for names of resources.

Adam

On 3/4/13 9:06 AM, "Bryan McLellan" 
<
 >
 wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jesse Campbell 
><
 >
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Bryan
>