Creating a system module path (starting with Telly)
Michael Stahnke
types/providers out of the core area of Puppet for Telly. We made a
mistake of talking about a point solution to a problem rather than the
vision on where we’d like it to go, and why. We’ve attempted to
outline this a bit more so you can hopefully have a better
understanding of our ideas. As always, feel free to comment and voice
concerns. This isn’t set in stone and at this point is a proposal.
== The Problem ==
Bundling types and providers into the core of Puppet has a few problems.
The most important problem is that it ties releases of the types or
providers to releases of core Puppet. That is a pretty slow moving
(for stability) system, and it is also a system where most of the
investment goes into supporting new releases rather than improving
older releases.
We want to keep our core stable, while allowing the community platform
experts, distro maintainers and other users to enhance the experience
with certain aspects of Puppet without having to wait for the next
major release.
The secondary problem is that it plays favourites - some platform
types are in core, others are not. Some monitoring systems, or disk
management systems are in core, others are not. That doesn't reflect
the real importance of those types, or that some are more special or
more stable than others - just happenstance of time.
On the other hand, having Puppet work out of the box is awesome. You
should be able to install Puppet and immediately get started, managing
your platform and generally doing awesome things.
Puppet with no types, and no providers, is not awesome. It can't do
anything - and "install twenty things, then ..." is not a good
introductory experience.
== Proposed Solution ==
We want to take some of the great lessons from other platforms - Perl,
Python, and Ruby - and apply them to this problem:
We are proposing to pull more types and providers out of Puppet, so
they get the benefit of an independent release cycle, and the
advantages of full forge integration.
We also propose to have a "system" module path: a set of modules that
ship with core Puppet, taken from the forge, and available by default
at install time. They will ensure that Puppet is still awesome out of
the box - but that you can list modules and their versions, and can
update freely.
We also plan a "vendor" module path, and a "site" module path. Other
platforms have shown the value of this: when distributions package
Puppet, they might want more or different modules to support their
systems better. Allowing them to drop into the vendor module path and
operate in the same way as our system modules makes it easy to use
normal modules in an awesome way.
Finally, the "site" module path allows for easy deployment of modules
through other packaging systems like yum and apt, internally to
companies and sites that want a different path for versioning modules.
They separate the mutable path used by the local tool and the managed
path for self-packaged modules.
This seems to offer the best of both worlds: we can take full
advantage of the strengths of modules, but without giving up the
awesomeness of Puppet that does great things out of the box.
Ashley Penney
--
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.
Bill Proud
Michael Stahnke
> Sounds good.
>
> One problem that I have with the forge is that the extent to which the
> modules have been tested is not clear to me. Can I take it that the core
> modules that ship with puppet will have been through a similar testing cycle
> as puppet itself?
will have that type testing. Other modules have varying degrees of
testing and we have plans to improve basically everything having to do
with modules and the forge in that space.
Mike
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/LyPHnvAgjQ4J.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.
John Warburton
A couple of requests:
- Notifications on module updates: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/12587
- Testing - I'd like to confirm these module paths support environments
John
--
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.
--
John Warburton
Ph: 0417 299 600
Email: jwarb...@gmail.com
Greg Sutcliffe
Hash: SHA1
+1 here
As a distribution packager, a clear place to put things specific to the
distribution is a big win for me. I've struggled in the past decided
whether to package the clean upstream sources, or to add my own tweaks
as well. To date, I've kept it clean, but this makes it easier to
mix-and-match the two, and still be able to trace whether a problem
lies in my distribution module or somewhere in the Puppet core.
Greg
- --
IRC: gwmngilfen
www.github.com/GregSutcliffe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk+ea0EACgkQ8O7RN8oK65O7ywCfYkmbP04gwn2x9641D0p3B0cf
ZRAAn3RpalobnbuyvQBcodGTY6tS7ULq
=Pix6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----