[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Role Versioning?

[Peter Donald < >]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Michael Glenney 
<
 >
 wrote:
> We don't use any community cookbooks so it hasn't been an issue for us yet.
> Maybe I should be careful about throwing that out there.  Though I'm
> surprised to hear there isn't a way to see all cookbooks that are applied to
> a node unless they're in the run list.  That would mean you can't see any if
> the dependency cookbooks unless they're explicitly listed as well.  Sounds
> like a gap or opscode trying to force a "best practice".

It is a gap IMHO. We have the following snippet in a cookbook that
records the final expanded set of recipes executed. We then have a
whole suite of custom scripts that mine this data at a later time.

ruby_block "get_seen_recipes" do
  block do
    node.override["knife_audit"]["seen_recipes"] = 
node.run_state[:seen_recipes]
  end
  action :create
end

> And to be clear, in our TLC's we use explicit dependencies ("java" "=
> 1.0.0").  To ensure we lock down the version. In the std cookbooks we use
> pessimistic versioning ("~> 1.0.0").  We may switch to optimistic in the
> future to further ease development as we open it to more teams.

Interesting to hear you say that. As we start to move from a smaller
team to a larger one. We are moving towards having pessimistic
dependencies in certain TLCs cookbooks and having pessimistic
constraints in our environments for just the TLCs. Right now we do all
of our version constraints in the environment config files.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald