Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Features: Configurable chef log location | Configurable chef-client version on container creating #63

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

therobot
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,

This PR attempts to implement both features mentioned above:

  • Being able to declare a customizable path for chef-client log inside a lxc container, this path is hardcoded at the moment. I have also added the capability of being able to specify a cookbook for the chef-client template.
  • Being able to install an specific chef-client version instead of the latest one, which is the only option at the moment.

Notes:

  • I've been able to converge a test container inside a vagrant instance and register it to a fake chef-zero server that runs in the vagrant instance, in both 12.04 and 14.04 set ups. Haven't added tests yet. See the code inside test/fixtures/cookbooks/lxc-test/recipes/test-container.rb
  • In order to at least being able to locally converge a vagrant instance I have been doing some cleanup in the kitchen / librarian side removing and updating stuff that does not work with my local workflow and other things that look not used or outdated. I'm completely open to bring some of this things back in order to get the PR accepted if necessary.

If more information or changes are needed, don't hesitate on asking.

To a location that reflects better the behavior
of it
Also adding support for ubuntu.1404, and all the
code necessary for converging the new feature.
On the client.rb config template of an lxc 
container.
So using chef 11 for the moment
Also providing a configurable cookbook for 
chef_client template (for wrapper cookbooks)
@martinisoft
Copy link

Anyone able to review these changes? I think they are against master and not develop so it might need to be pointed to that branch instead.

@chrisroberts
Copy link
Contributor

Hi! I'm working through these and have them locally fetched and cherry picked over, so no worries!

@martinisoft
Copy link

Awesome, thank you @chrisroberts

@therobot therobot closed this Jan 4, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants