I think everyone wants something like this, the two questions are what exactly it should look like, and how we get there from here.First of all, we should think about whether chef version is the correct property to look at. For example, we could imagine adding new syntax (e.g., platform family) to two release tracks of chef, such that, say, 10.30+ or 11.6+ would work, but 11.0-11.4 would not. It may also be the case that someone who can't or won't upgrade wants to backport the required feature via a cookbook. If these use cases are important, we might consider a design where chef exposes a list of capabilities it provides and cookbooks depend on specific capabilities rather than chef versions.As for implementation and execution, we need to take a look at how chef server handles unknown keys in metadata (and other potential compat issues) to see what the constraints on the implementation might be.--
Daniel DeLeoOn Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Mike wrote:
+1 for more descriptive metadata in cookbooks.Maybe "chef_version", or hell, a subset of "supports" (which is unused...)-MOn Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Avishai Ish-Shalom< " target="_blank"> > wrote:Hi all,I would like to propose an addition to cookbook metadata - a chef versioncompatibility deceleration which declares which Chef version a cookbook canbe used with.This will aid users to understand if a cookbook might break on chef upgrades- i think the chef 11 migration has demonstrated the need of such metadata.some like:compatible ">= 11.0.0"what say you?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.