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

Busser only uses /tmp/verfier/gems as it's local source #27

Closed
damacus opened this issue Jun 26, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

Busser only uses /tmp/verfier/gems as it's local source #27

damacus opened this issue Jun 26, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@damacus
Copy link

damacus commented Jun 26, 2015

I'd like to be able to reduce my spin up the verify times of kitchen suites.
Baking the busser/busser-serverspec etc gems into the chef omnibus installer would be a nice option as it will persist between destroys.
I there a way to override the BUSSER_GEM, GEM_PATH, GEM_HOME, GEM_CAHE variables?

Assuming that:

  • chef-client is installed into the image
  • busser and busser-serverspec gems are installed

kitchen would find those gems. For a slow connection, or a non-existent connection to the internet (corp firewall, no-internet etc) this would be super useful.

If this doesn't belong here, but in the kitchen-ci repo I'm happy to move it.

@blelump
Copy link

blelump commented Oct 6, 2015

I've got a similar issue so I've dived into the code and it seems it's more related to test-kitchen itself. As these variables are configured here and they're all based on root_path value, they might be slightly configured, eg.

# .kitchen.yml
busser:
  root_path: /some/path

However, in my case it doesn't solve anything, since I would like to use simply environment Ruby and gems. Besides, the installation script is also interesting, because it never checks for system libraries as the GEM_PATH is set to [root_path, "gems"] whereas root_path by default points to /tmp/verifier.

If you're provisioning the environment anyhow, I suggest to just put whatever is needed into root_path, because it seems it's the easiest solution here.

@damacus
Copy link
Author

damacus commented Apr 19, 2019

I don't think I/we need this anymore with inspec/improvements to train. I certainly can't replicate it anymore.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants