[[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Bootstrap templates

[Laurent < >]

Hi, 

>> just some offtopic thoughts :)
>> I dislike the bootstrap templates, they are awful shell scripts and
>> not idempotent at all, that makes me think they're not compatible with
>> chef's concepts. ;-)
>
> I'm a bit thrown by this statement. Who reruns bootstrap templates?
> They don't NEED to be idempotent.

As long as there's no failure there's no need to rerun it.

> My bootstrap templates do three things - installs ruby, installs chef,
> runs chef.
> It's a chicken/egg problem. Unless chef becomes some sort of
> progressive self-compiling beast, you're STILL going to have to
> install Ruby.

sure, i wasn't quite speaking about the chicken/egg problem, just that
as wild idea i was thinking of using chef::bootstrap_client on a
remote system.
It would require a lot of changes to the providers to make them work
on a remote system. (having the Directory resource working through ssh
on a remote system with no ruby installed for instance...)
ok, i'm being silly :)

>> I'd rather see chroot and remote(ssh) support for resources instead.
>> That would enable the use of resources/definitions/recipes to
>> bootstrap nodes and chef clients.
>>
>> so to answer the initial question: yes create a new project for it !
>> get it out of chef and let's make chef able to install himself with
>> its resources and providers ! ;-)
>>
>
> I could see wanting to be able to use more 'chef' in bootstrapping but
> the bootstrap process is about getting chef on the system in the first
> place.

To be honest when i first looked at knife bootstrap templates I was
not only willing to install chef on a remote system, i was also
willing to install remote systems (xen,lxc guests) from scratch. But
it's quite out of knife bootstrap scope i guess.

-- 
Laurent