[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: a Cookbook pattern, the "corporate" repository for proprietary packages

[Joshua Timberman < >]

Ohai!

On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Zac Stevens wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Bryan Berry 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> I think we need a common practice for this. It would be useful for me and
>> you if we used the same name for our respective corporate repos. That way 
>> we
>> can more easily reuse each other's recipes. I think "corporate" fits well 
>> ;)
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see the benefit of using
> the same name for our internal package repositories.

In such a shared cookbook, I would make the name an attribute with a default 
value in the cookbook's attributes/default.rb. Then the consumer of the 
cookbook can change that to whatever they want in a role.

Also, have you guys seen the work Heavy Water Software (Darrin and AJ) did on 
their new project pennyworth? It may be useful and relevant to your interests.

https://github.com/heavywater/pennyworth

> This allows us to mirror the files locally and specify the local
> download site in a role, while using the cookbook without any
> modifications.


Bingo! This is why when I write cookbooks I make the download location for 
3rd party repositories or hosting sites an attribute.

-- 
Opscode, Inc
Joshua Timberman, Technical Program Manager
IRC, Skype, Twitter, Github: jtimberman