[chef] Re: Nginx cookbook changes/improvements

[Jeffrey Hulten < >]

On Nov 24, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Jesse Nelson wrote:

Sorry last line should have read: " IMO these goals can be obtained in the same _cookbook_ "  


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jesse Nelson < "> > wrote:

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Joshua Timberman < "> > wrote:

Second, COOK-1953[1]. This proposes the removal of all the source

compiling parts of the nginx cookbook to a new cookbook, "nginx_source."

[1]: http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/COOK-1953

I am against making a nginix_source cookbook when a nginix::source recipe should be sufficient.  

In terms of the "library cookbook" theres no reason you can't use  nginix::library recipe with no content. Then people can load that up and do whatever they want.   

Bigger discussion wrt library/app cooks, but IMO these goals can be obtained in the same recipe.

I disagree. The largest issue I see in having them in the same cookbook is the dependencies they carry. In a security or compliance sensitive environment I may not even want build-essentials on my Chef server, much less on my node (even if it isn't being used). I can see a compelling case for splitting cookbooks when there are large sets of dependencies that are not used by a piece that is useful to many people.

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