[chef-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: dependency spaghetti

[Noah Kantrowitz < >]

No, because the whole idea of Berkshelf is to treat cookbooks like any other 
package manager. At best you could have a feature in Berkshelf to apply a 
patch blob from the Berksfile kind of like how Homebrew or Portage work, but 
down this path lies madness.

--Noah

On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Lamont Granquist 
<
 >
 wrote:

> 
> Shouldn't berkshelf make it easier to fork a community cookbook and modify 
> the depends, and then merge upstream periodically when you need to and 
> point your berkshelf at your local copy?  It certainly works better than 
> the previous knife cookbook site stuff, and merge conflicts over the 
> depends should be pretty easy to deal with...
> 
> On 10/2/13 7:05 PM, Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
>> The problem is as we move the community to Berkshelf and tools like it 
>> (which is totally the right direction) you can't just edit the upstream 
>> cookbooks since you never see them directly. Optional dependencies would 
>> help, but the user experience if you are missing an optional cookbook is 
>> definitely not great and we'll need some improvements there. The real 
>> dream is some kind of declarative way to state when a dependency is 
>> needed, but so far I've not seen any proposed way to do that which doesn't 
>> veer off into crazytown.
>> 
>> --Noah
>> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail