`ensure => absent` fails on el5/el6 if net-snmp-utils is installed about puppet-snmp HOT 9 CLOSED

I will have to dig into this. I might lean toward ensure => absent propagating to snmp::client.

I am not happy that package { 'foo': ensure => present } runs yum while package { 'foo': ensure => absent } runs rpm.

from puppet-snmp.

The logic behind that is that yum will try to remove everything that
depends that package where as rpm removes just the package. Yum's
behavior is better in this instance but is known to cause breakage by
being over zealous. Eg., uninstalling all of gnome because you want to
remove cups.

I think there may be a way to force it to use yum for the removal but
it's been awhile since I've looked at the code for that type.

from puppet-snmp.

@jhoblitt How does aa6755a look?

from puppet-snmp.

👍 This looks great / much less confusing.

from puppet-snmp.

@jhoblitt You wouldn't happen to know how to test the Puppet warning function in rspec would you?

This just does not work in rspec-puppet:

it { should contain_warning('snmp: parameter install_client is deprecated; please use manage_client')}

from puppet-snmp.

Unfortunately, you can't test if a function call happened that way because the contain_* methods inspect the state of the generated catalog (which only contains resources). The only solution I've come up with for warnings is to look for the string in the stderr with rspec-system/beaker. Eg: https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-concat/blob/master/spec/acceptance/deprecation_warnings_spec.rb

from puppet-snmp.

Ah, yes. That makes sense now. I keep getting client catalog confused with server-side stuff.

from puppet-snmp.

This ships in Forge release 3.2.0.

from puppet-snmp.

Fabulous!

from puppet-snmp.