General discussion about Chef

[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CentOS 5


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Matt Whiteley < >
  • To:
  • Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CentOS 5
  • Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:57:17 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Rh5gl3c2QF+R2/myi+xOzZlJCIcxwprzYu8nt8pj9oxuNxUEZ5MFNV/ASQDMLI5dyx sd6z7o55YqURpFO/Ssj3uz+iFNEMTl3AmeZ479NnUD+T2VKMKF0+HQAG++QkJOnnFDXI BIWElyYwR6OXR7vE4R6PdZQ2Q/VENV6DSjXBc=
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ian Marlier 
< >
 wrote:
> <meekly raising hand>
>
> I'm all for improvements to the packaging of Chef/ruby/etc for CentOS, but
> the profile.d modification strikes me as being one step too far.  Can't
> really justify it, just doesn't feel right.

I'd agree, it was just a quick fix for us now. I assumed that the
aegisco rpm would at some point link the needed binaries. I wasn't
suggesting the profile.d hack be added to the rpm.

-- 
Matt Whiteley 
< >

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

§