On Friday, September 21, 2012 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Jakov Sosic wrote: > > On 09/22/2012 03:21 AM, jdehnert wrote: > > > I'm aware of the issues of installing software through source vs. pkg > > management systems. I should have mentioned that I've been in IT for > > over 20 years. Its just puppet and ruby that are new to me, but I'm > > learning fast. We are in agreement about sticking to one type of > > package management. It much easier now that it was back when I was > > installing SunOS 4.1.4 on Sun 3's and Sparc 2's and compiling X11 from > > source. > > If you were really aware, then you wouldn't do it... >
I haven't done anything yet, except appeal to the puppet community at large for some insight > I've considered all of these. Does anyone know of a CentOS/RH repo that > > has the latest versions of Ruby available? I have done some searching, > > but not exhaustively so, for a repo with the most recent versions of > > Ruby, but no luck so far. The reason I want to use ruby-1.9.2-p320 on > > these test VM's is because in the production environment that these are > > mimicking the engineering folks are running that release, under RVM, and > > they want to avoid any installs of other versions to eliminate any > > chance of something getting pointed to an older version of Ruby > > accidentally. The dev and production environments will both point to > > Ruby under RVM. > > This is wrong approach. Try to figure out why is RHEL/CentOS and Suse > Enterprise sticking to older version of ruby (or every other piece of > software they distribute), and what are the benefits... > Considering that the developers have been working on this for over a year, and they have their reasons for selecting RVM and Ruby 1.9.2, it's not my call. I'm here to bring as much consistency and reliability as I can to the systems that have been managed by the whims of the developers for quite some time. I've made a huge amount of progress by basically giving them them some nice, clean, secure production systems that they aren't allowed to manage. I have helped them get to the point where they can use Capistrano to deploy the application, and we have partitioned Neo4j and Mongodb onto their own separate systems. Now I'm working on deploying puppet to keep the systems consistent and allow me to do all that puppet can do to keep things in order. > > I was hoping someone might know some details about the rpm system that > > might allow me to tell it that ruby was installed without installing > > ruby, as with fake sendmail. Perhaps a lesser known tool that allows one > > to insert entries into the rpm database files. > > You are mangling with the system in a way it shouldn't be mangled with. > Try to persuade your developers to use platform that is already used on > production, and not vice versa. > Well, I suppose everyone has a different mandate at different companies. My current gig is at yet another start up and the company is engineering driven. Given that I need to make sure that I don't do anything that steps on engineering. I'm not entirely under their thumb. I insisted on certain conditions before I took this job, and that has allowed me to replace token security with real security. Engineering and I have worked together very closely to help get them more compartmentalized to the application is now of a discrete unit, and not so much an electron cloud where they may have reached all over the OS. I give them a reliable server, and they agree to keep the application contained. > If that doesn't go quite right, then take src.rpm from RedHat/CentOS, > bump version to 1.9.x - or whatever do you want to use, drop in newer > sources, fix patches - and rebuild the RPM - or try to backport latest > feodra build: > > > http://fedora.aau.at/linux/releases/17/Fedora/source/SRPMS/r/ruby-1.9.3.194-10.1.fc17.src.rpm > > > but that could bring you back to trouble because that version probably > won't be 100% identical to the one that your dev team uses (if they > stick to sources). So we're back to square one - you *have to* convice > your team to use Ruby from RPM package - either fedora backport or > standard RHEL 1.8.x. > > Everything else _*will*_ bit you in the ass in the long run. > That’s why I'm here asking questions. Its good to minimize all the future ass biting that one can, which is also why I'm testing on a pair of VM's to get puppet functional and worked out before it gets anywhere near a production system. > -- > Jakov Sosic > www.srce.unizg.hr > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/OEPaTlAP2QIJ. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
