On Oct 21, 6:11 am, Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> wrote: > The only real thing I can recommend is either 1) package the software > yourself (by far the best option) or 2) use a defined type to do a > wget, install, and rm of the tarball. Really, if you look at the > Blastwave pkg-get script, that's pretty much what it does, so you'd be > walking in the footsteps of giants or whatever.
Right, the main issue with option 1) is that to do it properly it's a lot of work to extracting out the behaviour of the installer script/ binary/whatever, and there's no garauntee that I will pick up all the changes or potential changes - e.g. a case statement that installs a different library for different OS revisions. This is a lot of work per package, and it's not garaunteed to be supported by the vendor (who should have done this work themselves :/). I could just build a pkg/rpm (we're a Solaris/Redhat shop) wrapper around the installer itself, but that doesn't fit either of the frameworks correctly - the package manifest will be the install files, which should be removed from the system. I have seen one instance where an rpm wrapper is used and the last thing it does in postinstall is uninstall itself. Seems kludgy to me. Option 2) is what I was suggesting, but wanted to use a filebucket rather than wget, but if that's not workable I'll stick with wget. I was really hoping to be able to avoid having to have external repositories of software though. You don't see any case for a provider (exec or package) within puppet to meet this need? Thanks, Andrew Andrew. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
