[PATCH aeolus-configure] Allow standalone imagefactory/iwhd installation
Michael Orazi
morazi at redhat.com
Wed May 9 16:08:36 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:51:26AM +0200, Mo Morsi wrote:
> > On 05/09/2012 02:19 AM, Steve Linabery wrote:
> > > ---
> > > conf/imagefactory_configure | 2 +-
> > > conf/iwhd_configure | 1 +
> > > recipes/aeolus/manifests/image-factory.pp | 5 ++---
> > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/conf/imagefactory_configure
> > > b/conf/imagefactory_configure
> > > index ed15806..805df23 100644
> > > --- a/conf/imagefactory_configure
> > > +++ b/conf/imagefactory_configure
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > parameters:
> > > - package_provider: rpm
> > > + package_provider: yum
> > > classes:
> > > - aeolus::image-factory
> > > diff --git a/conf/iwhd_configure b/conf/iwhd_configure
> > > index 5ed3b92..b507e88 100644
> > > --- a/conf/iwhd_configure
> > > +++ b/conf/iwhd_configure
> > > @@ -15,5 +15,6 @@
> > > parameters:
> > > enable_https: true
> > > enable_security: false
> > > + package_provider: yum
> > > classes:
> > > - aeolus::iwhd
> > >
> >
> > NACK, this has come up many times in various discussions (though
> > not
> > recently), but we can't have configure auto-install the packages if
> > they
> > are missing, which is what changing the package provider to 'yum'
> > would do.
> >
> > -Mo
>
> Good point, Mo, I had forgotten the discussion around this TBH.
>
> While I think eventually we need yum to handle some of this, the
> patch works if one instead tests like:
>
> 1) install aeolus-all
> 2) yum remove aeolus-conductor
> 3) ensure existence of valid /etc/aeolus-conductor/oauth.json
> 4) `aeolus-configure -p (iwhd|imagefactory)`
>
> I will resubmit with package_provider: rpm
>
> Thanks for the feedback,
> Steve|eggs|eggmaster
>
I'm pretty sure package_provider: rpm is the existing state, so really just resubmit with that file unchanged.
m
More information about the aeolus-devel
mailing list