Use ensure_packages to simpify packages management

[smortex]

Each one of these classes included bacula::virtual which in turn included both classes. As a consequence, any node declaring either a bacula::director or a bacula::storage implicitly declares the other class. This did not allowed to follow strictly the Role & Profiles pattern (see #121 (comment)) where you would like to use resource-style declaration for both classes.

Thanks to stdlib's ensure_packages (available from stdlib 3.2.0, released in 2012) we can avoid the virtual resources.

This was tested successfully on FreeBSD and Debian.

Known side effects:

• Users have to include / declare both bacula::director and bacula::storage in their configuration (this is a breaking change I guess… The README suggests to use resource-style declaration of both classes, but this setup was not working so users may have used trial-and-error to find a working setup where only one of these classes is explicitly present, and the other one was incidentally included);
• The Class[Bacula::Storage] is now reported correctly by PuppetDB (for some undetermined reason, I could not query PuppetDB for this class when it was included, and this change fix the problem… likely a problem in PuppetDB itself).

[zachfi]

Thanks for the PR. This change looks good, though I'm not sure why the Class[Bacula::Storage] didn't show up in PuppetDB. I'm pretty sure, though not currently looking at it, that I have bacula storage boxes that are not also bacula directors. Looking at the bacula::virtual class here, it doesn't look to include either the bacula::storage or the bacula::director.

That said, this seems like a good change, and one that would be less confusing perhaps. Does the EPP in the package name still work for the director?

[smortex]

Wow! I should be on drugs… I was so sure about what I wrote in my comments that I did not re-checked the removed code and indeed, the commit message is just madness 😳

/me is looking into this to understand what the hell is going on…

[zachfi]

Hehe, don't worry. :) Let me know if you still want this in. I think its a fine change, but I suspect that understanding what is happening would be good regardless.

[smortex]

Well… I found nothing out of the ordinary. I rephrased the commit message to remove the nonsense and updated the issue accordingly.

I guess the simplification worth it, so ready for review / merging.

Thanks!

[zachfi]

Looks good. Thanks for the efforts.