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

install rundeck from apt for osfamily debian #286

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 25, 2016

Conversation

cy4n
Copy link
Contributor

@cy4n cy4n commented Nov 17, 2016

rundeck packages are available from bintray ( https://bintray.com/rundeck/rundeck-deb )
obviously we want to use apt to install rundeck on debian-based hosts

im available on freenode#voxpupuli if you have questions

(see PR #285 , thanks to @grafjo for explaining rspec to me:-) )

@nibalizer
Copy link
Member

This looks great. I'm wondering why it wasn't done this way to begin with? Are the apt repos new?

What are the symver implications of this? Do we think changing to using an apt repo is a big change? I tend to think its considerably better puppet, but might make a system admin go O.O

@grafjo
Copy link
Contributor

grafjo commented Nov 22, 2016

@nibalizer there is no official documentation on rundeck.org available. Just the click path via bintray.com/rundeck.

i think the change to make the apt repo the preferred way of installing rundeck on debian based systems requires a major version bump, to keep admins happy :)

maybe manage_yum_repo can be replaced with manage_repo so the user still has a choice and debian and red hat based systems share the same behavior.

@cy4n
Copy link
Contributor Author

cy4n commented Nov 23, 2016

so i added the "old" deb download as default feature in 7743233
you have to set "deb_download = false" and "package_ensure='installed'" to use the apt repo.

(manage_yum_repo and now manage_repo only decide if the module installs the repo sources itself, you can still use apt/yum if the manage_repo is set to false., e.g. if you have your own mirrors)

@@ -65,6 +65,9 @@
{
"name": "puppetlabs/java_ks",
"version_requirement": ">= 1.0.3 <2.0.0"
},
{
"name": "puppetlabs/apt"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Version requirement here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we use 2.3.0 in prod (which obviously works).
i tried 2.2.0 in a fresh VM, works too so i'll go for ">=2.2" in 6bb4987

(tried 2.1 too, but it breaks unattended-upgrades for me so its 💩 )

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Nov 24, 2016

@cy4n I think you might want to add a whitespace and this error message ist about open ending, too.

Please try something like >= 2.2 < 3.0

@cy4n
Copy link
Contributor Author

cy4n commented Nov 24, 2016

2.3.0 is the current puppetlabs/apt version, so shouldN't the reference be "<=2.3.0"? since we can't know if 2.4.0 might break the module?

@alexjfisher
Copy link
Member

Minor versions shouldn't break functionality. I think you also have to use all 3 parts of the version number.

eg. use >= 2.2.0 <3.0.0

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Nov 25, 2016

@cy4n You really should use the example from @alexjfisher and also define a version requirement for the module dirtree.

@cy4n
Copy link
Contributor Author

cy4n commented Nov 25, 2016

i fixed the metadata.json according to alex' example, thanks for helping out.

about dirtree: tbh i have no idea what version you need, the version is already missing in the upstream master: https://github.com/voxpupuli/puppet-rundeck/blob/master/metadata.json

@dhoppe
Copy link
Member

dhoppe commented Nov 25, 2016

@cy4n There are only 2 versions at the Puppet Forge, so you could use something like >= 0.2.2 <1.0.0. But I will merge this PR because of the successful Travis CI results.

@dhoppe dhoppe merged commit 2c0c67b into voxpupuli:master Nov 25, 2016
@cy4n cy4n mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2017
@wyardley
Copy link
Contributor

I'm taking this back out (though adding a README item about it) in #335 because current style guide specifies that things like apt / epel etc. should be soft dependencies
https://docs.puppet.com/puppet/5.1/style_guide.html#dependencies

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.

6 participants