[chef] Re: Re: Re: About Opscode's cookbook repo changes

[Daniel DeLeo < >]

On Friday, June 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Miquel Torres wrote:

> That would be a possible solution. It is not a good one, because you
> need to install the whole chef package plus dependencies to use knife,
> and you even get a chef-client running, which you definitely don't
> want in your desktop.
> 
> Isn't it possible to for example use a rake task, and only need to
> install a chef "light" package or something?
> 
> 
Mostly not. Whether or not a given packaging system starts a chef-client 
daemon is a packaging issue. I'll defer to the apt experts for instructions 
on how to do this on Ubuntu, but the rubygems packages, for example, do not 
start chef-client.

Could you explain more about what issues are caused by installing the "whole 
chef package plus dependencies"? Are there conflicts with other packages?

-- 
Dan DeLeo
> 
> 2011/6/17 Daniel DeLeo 
> <
 
>  
> (mailto:
 )>:
> > 
> > On Friday, June 17, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Miquel Torres wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > last month there was a post regarding changes in the opscode cookbooks 
> > > repo:
> > > http://www.opscode.com/blog/2011/05/24/update-on-the-future-of-opscodes-cookbooks/
> > > 
> > > While I can understand the reasons that made Opscode remove the
> > > metadata.json from all cookbooks, it does pose a big problem for
> > > non-ruby tools like LittleChef, which depended on JSON to
> > > inter-operate.
> > > 
> > > Is there a way to generate metadata.json for all cookbooks that
> > > doesn't need a Chef Server?
> > > "knife cookbook metadata" doesn't classify there, unfortunately.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Miquel
> > knife cookbook metadata doesn't need to talk to the server to work, but 
> > the config checker will error out if you don't have a key. So the best 
> > solution is to patch knife so that the config checker only cares about 
> > your private key when running a command that requires it.
> > 
> > --
> > Dan DeLeo