[chef] Re: Re: cookbook directory names

[Tara Hernandez < >]

I have not done this personally, but I believe you can do this via Berkshelf's "berks package” command — The berkshelf actually stores cookbooks in that format (<name>-<version>), without you having to do it explicitly in your repo.  Might be worth checking out in any case…

Good luck!

-Tara

-- 

Tara Hernandez

Senior Engineering Manager

Lithium Technologies

“I’m Hiring!” — http://tinyurl.com/kjju3jc

From: Sam Darwin < "> >
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM
To: Tara Hernandez < "> >
Cc: " "> " < "> >
Subject: Re: [chef] Re: cookbook directory names

>> why you would do this?

For chef-solo.  So, chef server can store multiple versions of a cookbook, based on metadata, and therefore it's not necessary in that case.    With chef-solo, you might at times like to alternate between two versions of another cookbook, and since chef-solo can not simultaneously store different cookbooks in a database, then having them in-parallel such as qwerty-1.0.1 and qwerty-1.2.3 might be helpful.    Apparently it can not parse qwerty-1.2.3 though.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Tara Hernandez < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

One is curious as to why you would do this rather than just using the
version metadata to differentiate between versions?

--
Tara Hernandez
Senior Engineering Manager
Lithium Technologies
“I’m Hiring!” — http://tinyurl.com/kjju3jc





On 11/11/14, 12:00 PM, "Sam Darwin" < "> > wrote:

>Hi,
>
>is it acceptable to name cookbooks with the version included in the
>directory
>name within the cookbook repo?   for example
>/cookbooks/build-essential-1.4.2/
>, for the build-essential cookbook.
>
>after some simple testing, it seems that chef server will support this
>naming,
>however chef-solo will not.     could chef-solo parse such cookbooks?
>
>Thanks.