On 22/09/2012, at 4:23 PM, jdehnert wrote:
>
>
> 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.
