----- 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