[chef] RE: Re: Re: Re: Augeas support


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Kevin Keane Subscription < >
  • To: < >
  • Subject: [chef] RE: Re: Re: Re: Augeas support
  • Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:36:24 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sendgrid.info; h=subject :from:to:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to:references :sender; q=dns; s=smtpapi; b=K8jl4byDEOpdv3O3p9dYw/hunFfQPDxYHL2 G991geDL+0GC95RihPEFEzGgDn5AYr3Qe1K4n16R4uhX4Ma8bh0Ic8rcuZIlR00Q K/tu7jefzISalirO8CNzNEVKvl5zb0I6sedgFfXi9ss4sGgIN7STZGQZjONWo+qU eUPaNDUw=

Title: RE: [chef] Re: Re: Re: Augeas support
I'd be very interested in your file-edit code!

As for the CentOS/RedHat issue: first off, I hope I didn't come off as hostile. Having been a software developer for 20 years, I completely understand where Opscode is coming from.

The main challenge with creating a separate RedHat community cookbook is compatibility. Because so many *other* recipes depend on the Apache cookbook, any substitute cookbook would have to have the exact same name, provide all the same recipes, definitions etc. Like you, I created my own Apache cookbook, and it indeed says as compatible as *I* need it. But having two cookbooks with the same name (for compatibility) out there as a community cookbook would be confusing.

Maybe the Apache cookbook could be refactored along an interface/implementation type of pattern? As an added benefit, this pattern could also allow substituting nginx and lighttpd without breaking dependencies. But it would probably be a fairly major undertaking. Personally, I can live with creating my own. It's not ideal, but workable.

-----Original message-----
> From:jfotop < "> >
> Sent: Tuesday 19th February 2013 4:24
> To: ">
> Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Re: Augeas support
>
>
> I would also like to express my opinion and 2 of the issues mentioned in this
> thread.
>
> 1) First of all, I have been using file_edit inside of a template file,
> creating idempotent file edits. Anything I want to change is added to an
> attribute.All this requires is minimal coding in the .erb file. I could help
> anyone that's interested.
>
> 2) On the matter of CentOS-Redhat... I have also created my own cookbooks for
> apache, php and others.I haven't uploaded anything because I made them for my
> own specific needs and they are CentOS-oriented. But I have thought about
> creating community versions, just haven't gotten to it yet and didn't really
> know that so many people had a problem with the debian-oriented ones.
> Anyway, the ideal cookbook for me, would be an OS agnostic version, that,
> depending on the platform, would install and confgure it the redhat way or the
> debian way..or even the windows way. That's what providers do, isn't it? So a
> resource could even provide a setting for the platform.. And why not create OS
> based cookbooks. Even if there is an organization that wants all it's systems
> configured and deployed the debian-way for inter-organization uniformity, so
> one could, for example, check a specific path for all apache log files despite
> the OS, the resource could provide a "platform" attribute that would specify
> the "Redhat" way, or the "debian" way, or the "freebsd" way.
>
> Sorry for the long and tiring post..
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

§