- From: Noah Kantrowitz <
- To: Dennis <
- Cc: "
- Subject: [chef-dev] Re: cookbook vs gem
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:02:05 -0700
So this is a somewhat contentious issue among a few of us, but the short
answer is "not much if done correctly". The biggest difference is that
cookbooks have more file structure than a gem for things like cookbook files
and templates. A few people are starting to experiment more with managing the
bulk of their chef code as plain gems and I'm starting work on a tool to
automatically convert a gem to a cookbook as part of its release cycle.
On May 8, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Dennis
> the design decision I love most about chef is that one has the full
> featured ruby language at
> hand. The main method of packaging and distributing ruby chef code is via
> cookbooks - one could
> think of them as chef code libraries, so in fact a subset of generic ruby
> libraries. The most
> important tools to manage our cookbooks are some SCM like git and
> berkshelf. Berkshelf looks very
> similar to bundler.
> Up to now I could not answer myself the question: Why are cookbooks
> different from gems?
> People are developing cookbook repository servers with indexes,
> state-of-the-art APIs and all that
> cool stuff. As I understand, there are not any good solutions to mirror the
> official or even host
> your own gem repository. What about features like signed cookbooks/gems? My
> point is, I have a
> strong feeling we could benefit from collaboration with the rubygems
> project (and vice versa).
> I would claim that the most important features of our cookbook stack
> overlaps with gems and it
> feels to me like reinventing the wheel just because it is perceived as
> seperate domains of
> I am writing to this list to ask you, if I am missing a major point?! Is
> anyone aware of
> discussions, articles, projects or efforts on consolidating cookbooks and
> I greatly appreciate your feedback!
> Best regards,
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.