- From: Lamont Granquist <
>
- To:
- Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Re: RE: Single Repo vs Repo per cookbook
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:27:17 -0700
I've never needed to point into a multiple-cookbook repo so not
familiar with using the rel: option. I'd still argue that you
shouldn't need to do that, but yeah that renders that question
moot.
So, really it sounds like Berkshelf fully supports this method of
arranging cookbooks. Period. Full Stop. You do not need to
rearrange your cookbooks into single git repos to use Berkshelf.
The problem is that Berkshelf authors and users were noisy about
the single git repo model being superior, and that's been
conflated with the tool not being usable if you didn't drink all
the kool aid.
On 4/14/15 11:15 AM, Yoshi Spendiff wrote:
"
type="cite">
Isn't that only a problem if you have multiple repos
with multiple cookbooks? If you've got one repo with all
your role and wrapper cookbooks, and then peel off
individual library cookbooks which are
one-cookbook-per-repo then it should work okay and you can
just use `path: ../some_cookbook` in the Berksfile for the
internal dependencies of the monolithic repo, and avoid
having the library cookbooks having deps back into your
monolithic repo (which would smell like you're starting to
create circular dependencies).
Berkshelf should work fine for this model as well.
I think this is a bit of a moot point isn't it? You CAN
actually specify a git repository that has multiple cookbooks,
using the rel: option. You just can't do this in a single
Berksfile declaration, which is never going to be supported.
I was more asking if you SHOULD rather than if you COULD. It's
definitely possible.
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.