[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update automagically if apt-get install fails

["John E. Vincent (lusis)" < >]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Andrea Campi
<
 >
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Bryan McLellan 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>>

Is anyone opposed to the idea of it simply being a flag, that in the
case of a missing package, apt-get update or yum update is called and
a single retry is performed? That would likely solve 95% of the
problems I have when this happens.

>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Andrea Campi
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> > What about making it opt-in / opt-out with an attribute?
>> > I don't much care which way the default is, but it would sure be nice to
>> > have the option.
>>
>> It would have to be a global attribute and the only established
>> pattern we have for that is Chef::Config options. These can kind of be
>> managed by templatizing the client.rb (e.g. chef-client cookbook) but
>> it's less of a "flag" than would be convenient for this sort of thing.
>>
>> The reason it can't be a resource attribute is if you want it the
>> other way around, you're populating "auto_update true/false" in every
>> package resource in every cookbook if you want it the other way
>> around.
>
>
> D'oh, for some reason I was thinking "cookbook".
>
>>
>> But yeah, it feels awesome. Of course the apt package provider should
>> help me with my apt-cache! We also felt it violates a Chef Law, but
>> none of us could name it.
>>
>
> Yeah, it feels a bit "do what I mean", but in this case I think that's quite
> reasonable.
>
> Playing devil's advocate, how will that work with cookbooks that use
> apt_repository, which runs apt-get update ?
> Worst case there will be more than one apt-get update in a single run (and
> that probably only if the package is not there for real).
> Can you think of other edge cases?