Telly: Nagios types moving into Module

[Michael Stahnke]

For the next major Puppet version, code-named Telly, we have some
changes coming. This is the first in a series of emails around these
changes and may require some input from the community.

For Telly, the nagios types will be moved into a module. This allows
them to be iterated on in isolation from the rest of Puppet's core
release cycle and process. In the future we have plans to move several
other types into modules that can be individually maintained,
improved, tested and used.

The module for Nagios will be available on the Forge.

The upgrade path is the thing we need some feedback about. The basic
steps to upgrade would be to setup a Telly master, and then install
the Nagios module via the Puppet Module Tool, which ships integrated
with 2.7.13+ and Telly.

The only caveat with this is that if, in the past, you were relying on
the Nagios types and forget to install that module (or are unable to
for some reason), you would get a failure. The best proposal we could
come up with was to have the platform team add some code that lets the
user know that the Nagios types have moved. This basically moves this
into a 'fail-well' state. We'll try to provide the best information
possible to the end-user about what is going on.

Is that an acceptable path moving forward? Comments and discussion welcome.

Mike Stahnke
Community Manager

[Matthaus Litteken]

By 2.7.13+ of course Mike means 2.7.14 and later (because 2.7.13 was a
security release). Look for an rc of 2.7.14 later today with the
module face included.

-Matthaus

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to puppe...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
>

[Ashley Penney]

I think that would be OK.  I'm actually fairly nervous about this new move towards dragging

more and more out of the core into modules.  It wouldn't be so bad if Puppet had a proper

"packaging system" that handled dependencies and so forth, but as it stands I'm just worried

about reaching a situation where we're constantly telling people in #puppet "oh, well first

you need to get stdlib, nagios, yum, this, that, etc, that's why you can't do this".

However assuming this is going ahead then I think the error message should probably for

now tell the user that they've been moved AND spit out an appropriate commandline to

immediately import the module to the right place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

[Nigel Kersten]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Ashley Penney <ape...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that would be OK.  I'm actually fairly nervous about this new move towards dragging

more and more out of the core into modules.  It wouldn't be so bad if Puppet had a proper

"packaging system" that handled dependencies and so forth, but as it stands I'm just worried

about reaching a situation where we're constantly telling people in #puppet "oh, well first

you need to get stdlib, nagios, yum, this, that, etc, that's why you can't do this".

It's important to note here that the version of the module tool we're talking about does indeed handle dependencies automatically, although prior versions didn't.

--
Nigel Kersten
Product Manager, Puppet Labs

[Gabriel Filion]

On 12-04-13 03:06 PM, Ashley Penney wrote:
> I'm actually fairly nervous about this new move towards dragging
> more and more out of the core into modules. It wouldn't be so bad if
> Puppet had a proper
> "packaging system" that handled dependencies and so forth, but as it
> stands I'm just worried
> about reaching a situation where we're constantly telling people in
> #puppet "oh, well first
> you need to get stdlib, nagios, yum, this, that, etc, that's why you
> can't do this".

humm I must agree with this.

Since the types by themselves are not a module per-se, could it be
better to package them in the same manner as the core is packaged, and
made available through the same resources?

so then, people could install those with gem, apt or yum. (and easily
require those automatically from actual modules)

--
Gabriel Filion

[Walter Heck]

Well, i think there's a big difference between things that are
standard in a linux distro and modules that are 3rd party software
like nagios.
Besides I think this is all adressed by what Nigel just mentioned: the
moduel tool does dependency stuff starting with Telly.

cheers,

Walter

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
>

--
Walter Heck

--
follow @walterheck on twitter to see what I'm up to!
--
Check out my new startup: Server Monitoring as a Service @ http://tribily.com
Follow @tribily on Twitter and/or 'Like' our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/tribily

[Kelsey Hightower]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06:52 PM UTC-4, Ashley Penney wrote:

I think that would be OK.  I'm actually fairly nervous about this new move towards dragging

more and more out of the core into modules.  It wouldn't be so bad if Puppet had a proper

"packaging system" that handled dependencies and so forth, but as it stands I'm just worried

about reaching a situation where we're constantly telling people in #puppet "oh, well first

you need to get stdlib, nagios, yum, this, that, etc, that's why you can't do this".

Newer versions of Puppet include an updated module tool that handles dependencies and some other niceties: Check out The Puppet Module Tool Screencast

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Todd Zullinger]

Michael Stahnke wrote:
> For the next major Puppet version, code-named Telly, we have some
> changes coming. This is the first in a series of emails around these
> changes and may require some input from the community.
>
> For Telly, the nagios types will be moved into a module. This allows
> them to be iterated on in isolation from the rest of Puppet's core
> release cycle and process. In the future we have plans to move several
> other types into modules that can be individually maintained,
> improved, tested and used.
>
> The module for Nagios will be available on the Forge.
>
> The upgrade path is the thing we need some feedback about. The basic
> steps to upgrade would be to setup a Telly master, and then install
> the Nagios module via the Puppet Module Tool, which ships integrated
> with 2.7.13+ and Telly.

Is it possible to package these modules for distros? In the past,
we've had a few requests to do this for third-party modules but we
didn't do this because there wasn't really any standard for it. With
puppet module tool being integrated now, perhaps that's something that
can be reconsidered.

I'm thinking that for folks using rpm, they'd rather see an update
that pulls in the same fucntionality as they had before. And even for
new installs, I'd personally prefer to install these things via rpm.
If I wanted to use a secondary package management system, I could use
gems or eggs or CPAN, but I don't. ;)

I think it's good to split out these things, as it would allow us to
properly add a nagios dep to the hypothetical puppet-module-nagios
package.

--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
-- W. C. Fields

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: [Puppet Users] Telly: Nagios types moving into Module,...:

> If I wanted to use a
> secondary package management system, I could use gems or eggs or CPAN, but I
> don't. ;)

+1.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.M...@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

[Ken Barber]

A pm2rpm tool perhaps Todd? :-).

[Kelsey Hightower]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Ken Barber <k...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:

A pm2rpm tool perhaps Todd? :-).

Something like pm2rpm would work, but we need to have a least one standard path for Puppet modules. I guess we can count on /etc/puppet/modules or /usr/share/puppet/modules being part of the default module path.

[Nigel Kersten]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> wrote:

Michael Stahnke wrote:

For the next major Puppet version, code-named Telly, we have some changes coming.  This is the first in a series of emails around these changes and may require some input from the community.

For Telly, the nagios types will be moved into a module.  This allows them to be iterated on in isolation from the rest of Puppet's core release cycle and process. In the future we have plans to move several other types into modules that can be individually maintained, improved, tested and used.

The module for Nagios will be available on the Forge.

The upgrade path is the thing we need some feedback about.  The basic steps to upgrade would be to setup a Telly master, and then install the Nagios module via the Puppet Module Tool, which ships integrated with 2.7.13+ and Telly.

Is it possible to package these modules for distros?  In the past, we've had a few requests to do this for third-party modules but we didn't do this because there wasn't really any standard for it.  With puppet module tool being integrated now, perhaps that's something that can be reconsidered.

I'm thinking that for folks using rpm, they'd rather see an update that pulls in the same fucntionality as they had before.  And even for new installs, I'd personally prefer to install these things via rpm.  If I wanted to use a secondary package management system, I could use gems or eggs or CPAN, but I don't. ;)

Note that as soon as you adopt environments, you end up having multiple locations on disk that you want modules to be installed into, which doesn't fit very well with traditional package management systems.

 

I think it's good to split out these things, as it would allow us to properly add a nagios dep to the hypothetical puppet-module-nagios package.

--

[Michael Stahnke]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> wrote:

> Michael Stahnke wrote:
>>
>> For the next major Puppet version, code-named Telly, we have some changes
>> coming.  This is the first in a series of emails around these changes and
>> may require some input from the community.
>>
>> For Telly, the nagios types will be moved into a module.  This allows them
>> to be iterated on in isolation from the rest of Puppet's core release cycle
>> and process. In the future we have plans to move several other types into
>> modules that can be individually maintained, improved, tested and used.
>>
>> The module for Nagios will be available on the Forge.
>>
>> The upgrade path is the thing we need some feedback about.  The basic
>> steps to upgrade would be to setup a Telly master, and then install the
>> Nagios module via the Puppet Module Tool, which ships integrated with
>> 2.7.13+ and Telly.
>
>
> Is it possible to package these modules for distros?  In the past, we've had
> a few requests to do this for third-party modules but we didn't do this
> because there wasn't really any standard for it.  With puppet module tool
> being integrated now, perhaps that's something that can be reconsidered.
>
> I'm thinking that for folks using rpm, they'd rather see an update that
> pulls in the same fucntionality as they had before.  And even for new
> installs, I'd personally prefer to install these things via rpm.  If I
> wanted to use a secondary package management system, I could use gems or
> eggs or CPAN, but I don't. ;)

Todd, welcome and I feel your pain. Trust me, I pushed every way I
could to use native packages as our module deliver mechanism. However
we have some odd requirements that make things not work as well with
RPM (or deb, or gems). Basically we need a mechanism to allow
multiple versions installed into separate environments (paths on
disk). That sort of ruled out traditional packaging systems, without
doing some installation and symlink-selection magic. Even then, there
were some issues.

Something like pm2rpm and pm2deb is very likely something we'll need
to make the lives of Puppet Users happy. It should be fairly simple
and we'll want to be sure that the default module path is something
that is FHS compliant.

We'll also want to work with Jordan and see if we can get packaging
Puppet Modules (in this format) as an option with FPM. I think FPM
already does some Puppet Module stuff, so it may not need any real
updates.

Mike

[Ashley Penney]

This is kind of an argument against moving these things out of the core in the first place in my opinion.  The fact that you can now have multiple versions of the nagios provider is just worse than having a single copy.  Before at least I could update to 2.7.x and be assured all my providers were at the same version, now I have to deal with all the module updates (which only grows as time goes on) and constantly deal with checking them into git, managing them, testing them with various versions of the client.

I get why you're doing this but as an end user this is just causing me more work and making me do more testing and a lot more management.  At least before I could rely on having a broad set of core resources.  Now we're going in the opposite direction.

Maybe I'm just a grouchy old sysadmin but now I can't just rely on yum.puppetlabs.com to provide my resources and that means time out of my day to update them and push them into git.  In the workflow we've instigated at work I cannot just throw in an update and push it - I have to create branches, run tests, open tickets.  With things provided by puppet's core I just have to get approval to update the client in one easy push.

Maybe I'll just make /etc/puppet/modules/ for modules imported directly from the forge (and unedited in any way) and instigate easier rules around updating these.

Sorry if this turned into a bit of a "GET OFF MY LAWN" post.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users...@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: [Puppet Users] Telly: Nagios types...:

> Todd, welcome and I feel your pain. Trust me, I pushed every way I
> could to use native packages as our module deliver mechanism. However
> we have some odd requirements that make things not work as well with
> RPM (or deb, or gems). Basically we need a mechanism to allow
> multiple versions installed into separate environments (paths on
> disk).

You make a compelling argument for why this doesn't map well to native
packaging tools. While it is possible to have multiple copies of an RPM
installed simultaneously, it would be a kludge in this case.

> Something like pm2rpm and pm2deb is very likely something we'll need
> to make the lives of Puppet Users happy.

Now that puppet has drug me into the ruby world, I've started down the
path of RPM packaging of gems. gem2rpm helped me get started. Having
something that works very similar to that would be a big help to those
that are experienced with ruby & gems.

Whatever you choose, though, there needs to be a way for admins to query
a client and find out

- what puppet modules are installed
- where each instance of the module is installed
- what "version" is present in each instance

[Nigel Kersten]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tim Mooney <Tim.M...@ndsu.edu> wrote:

In regard to: Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: [Puppet Users] Telly: Nagios types...:

Todd, welcome and I feel your pain.  Trust me, I pushed every way I
could to use native packages as our module deliver mechanism.  However
we have some odd requirements that make things not work as well with
RPM (or deb, or gems).  Basically we need a mechanism to allow
multiple versions installed into separate environments (paths on
disk).

You make a compelling argument for why this doesn't map well to native
packaging tools.  While it is possible to have multiple copies of an RPM
installed simultaneously, it would be a kludge in this case.

Something like pm2rpm and pm2deb is very likely something we'll need
to make the lives of Puppet Users happy.

Now that puppet has drug me into the ruby world, I've started down the
path of RPM packaging of gems.  gem2rpm helped me get started.  Having
something that works very similar to that would be a big help to those
that are experienced with ruby & gems.

Whatever you choose, though, there needs to be a way for admins to query
a client and find out

       - what puppet modules are installed
               - where each instance of the module is installed
               - what "version" is present in each instance

Absolutely. This is the functionality we'll have available in Puppet.

# puppet module list

/etc/puppetlabs/puppet/production/modules

└── nigelkersten-testmac (v0.0.2)

/opt/puppet/share/puppet/modules

├── puppetlabs-pe_accounts (v1.0.2)

├── puppetlabs-pe_compliance (v0.0.6)

├── puppetlabs-pe_mcollective (v0.0.43)

└── puppetlabs-stdlib (v2.3.1)

[Walter Heck]

On Apr 18, 2012 1:39 AM, "Nigel Kersten" <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:

> Absolutely. This is the functionality we'll have available in Puppet.
>
> # puppet module list
> /etc/puppetlabs/puppet/production/modules
> └── nigelkersten-testmac (v0.0.2)
> /opt/puppet/share/puppet/modules
> ├── puppetlabs-pe_accounts (v1.0.2)
> ├── puppetlabs-pe_compliance (v0.0.6)
> ├── puppetlabs-pe_mcollective (v0.0.43)
> └── puppetlabs-stdlib (v2.3.1)

Just checking since that example mentions puppet enterprise modules: this will be in the community edition as well, right?

[Kelsey Hightower]

Yep, the next release of Puppet open source will have it baked in.

 

--
Kelsey Hightower

Solutions Engineer

Puppet Labs

1-678-471-9501

[Walter Heck]

Yeah, right after that email I saw the 2.7.14rc1 release notes and
answered my own question, my apologies :)

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> puppet-users...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

--

[Kelsey Hightower]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Walter Heck <walte...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, right after that email I saw the 2.7.14rc1 release notes and
answered my own question, my apologies :)

No worries, we're here to help. 

[Stefan Heijmans]

Hi,

What will be the option(s) for Puppet users with no internet connection (not allowed), if things start to depend more on PMT and Puppet Forge?

Will we be able to make a local repo and do something like a 'puppet module localinstall' ?