[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Cookbook Design Patterns

[Jay Perry < >]

That is a good point.  If you took that path of not depending on the "base role cookbook" the question is would you find yourself duplicating some of what the base::default already has.  Maybe you only pull in the necessary components of base.  Say for example "base::platform" in my example above so that it can install the application from your local repositories.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Lamont Granquist < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

On Thu Apr  3 11:48:08 2014, Jay Perry wrote:

Tom/Lamont,
Both of your recommendations are very helpful which I think will help
give us a baseline of where we want our cookbooks to go.  We have our
work cut out for us but I think it's necessary for us to get to be
more flexible with the size of our organization.

@Lamont - Just to clarify when you state "your base role" I think you
mean "base" cookbook right?  I picture all my application cookbooks
including the "base" cookbook using 'include_recipe' considering when
I'm doing testing with test kitchen I don't have to worry about using
a role and just calling the recipe will include/configure the
necessary pieces (dns, ldap, yum, apt, etc).  The application cookbook
would have a depends on the base cookbook via the metadata.rb.

"base role" == "base role cookbook" if you're using role cookbooks.

something to think about is that its kind of nice to be able to use TK on an application cookbook and only pull in the dependencies that are actually necessary to run and test the application.  it isn't necessary for my personal user account to be on the server to run the app, so why pull all that in?  also you don't need lsof or tcpdump or any other utilities like that installed as well.  not having the base role cookbook as a dep of your app cookbook means you won't have to grind through the whole base role in order to test.