Re: Bug: dependency order in types file not honored

On Sat, 3 May 2003, Stephen Schaefer wrote:

> I believe the order of the dependencies listed for a type in the types
> file should be honored.  I had an entry:
>
> NIS_master_rev_00_01: set_nisdomain NIS_master
>
> and the NISmaster dependency was attempted before the set_nisdomain
> dependency.
> Double plus not good.

Was this version 2 or 3?  If version 3, then it's entirely dependent on
the timestamps of the stanzas associated with the host types, not on the
order of the host types in the types file.  In other words, if your config
looks like this:

# types file
type1:
   dostuff 001
   otherstuff 003

type2:
   morestuff 002
   yaystuff 004

# hosts file
host1: type2 type1

---

...then no matter what order you list type1 and type2 in, you will always
get the stanzas executed in order by timestamp (dostuff, then morestuff,
then otherstuff, then yaystuff).  Is this a bug?  Yeah, kind of.

If you leave out that timestamping, then everything works fine when you
build a host the first time; you can expand type1 and type2 as much as you
want, and the stanzas always get executed in the correct order.  But when
you go to rebuild that host, then all of the stanzas for the first listed
type get executed, then all of the stanzas for the second listed type;
this is guaranteed to break ordering if you modify either of those types
once the host is installed.

Imagine installing using the above config, then adding another stanza to
the type2 host type, and then building another host just like host1.  If
you use timestamps, then that fifth stanza gets executed last based on
timestamps, but if you leave the timestamps out, then it gets executed
third, before all of the type1 stanzas.

Neither one is what you expect, and I think both are broken.
Unfortunately, I think it's somewhat endemic to ISconf, and you just have
to find the compromise that suits you best.

OTOH, if this is version 2, then yeah, that's definitely broken. :)

Luke

-- 
:       We are looking at a newspaper clipping labelled "Huffington
: Herald 11/12/96" in which "Huffington" states, in part:
:       "The inhabitants of Tiera del Fuego ... have a single word
: that means 'to look at each other hoping that either will offer to do
: something that both parties desire but are unwilling to do.'"
:       Does anyone know that word?
Management?


-------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
www.enterpriselinuxforum.com