[chef] Re: Re: CHEF-4579: should package action install also upgrade?

[Mike < >]

Thumbs down, vehemently.

"install", despite being what the underlying commands do, seems analogous to "create_if_missing" semantics for the file resource.

This then provides a distinct different between install and upgrade, while also allowing a specification of :version for those that pin to a specific one (a la ETSY007 [1]).

The hope of using an abstraction layer such as Chef to control the actions of the underlying commands in a more sensible and user-friendly manner, which if we adopt the "this command behaves this way all the time" approach, this may do us more harm than good.

[1]: https://github.com/etsy/foodcritic-rules/blob/master/rules.rb#L59-L74

-M

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Brian Hatfield < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

No. I strongly object to this.

action :upgrade exists and is sufficient.

If action :install performed upgrades, it would absolutely destroy things, for example running MongoDB using the 10gen repos and having a 2.2 database upgrade to 2.4 behind your back, etc.

Brian

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Bryan McLellan < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

'yum install foo' and 'apt-get install foo' will both install package
foo if it is not installed, and upgrade foo to a later version if
there is one available.

In Chef, the package install action will only install the package.
We're presuming here if you have chef-client running all the time you
don't want it constantly updating your systems behind your back.

Should this be different?

https://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-4579

--
Bryan McLellan | opscode | technical program manager, open source
(c) 206.607.7108 | (t) @btmspox | (b) http://blog.loftninjas.org