Vagrant Chef-Zero Provisioner uses Chef-Solo instead?

[Joaquin Menchaca]

Is this a bug, or is it suppose to work this way?

==> default: Running chef-zero...
DEBUG ssh: Re-using SSH connection.
 INFO ssh: Execute: chef-solo -c /tmp/vagrant-chef/solo.rb -j /tmp/vagrant-chef/dna.json (sudo=true)
DEBUG ssh: stdout: [2015-06-26T21:18:55+00:00] INFO: Started chef-zero at chefzero://localhost:8889 with repository at /tmp/vagrant-chef/c19100fe12f29bf544251f7d7a235dce, /tmp/vagrant-chef/bfad03565fe3ecf680d558e8af341658
  One version per cookbook
  data_bags at /tmp/vagrant-chef/53b0fe0a99cb305e675bc618db68b140/data_bags
  nodes at /tmp/vagrant-chef/8bb0903c9c271b10d5e3f1f69884cc05/nodes
  roles at /tmp/vagrant-chef/d77be995bf05ee56bed651f13f31f647/roles

[Seth Vargo]

Hi there,

I believe there is a GitHub issue with some discussion about this topic. Sorry, but I don't remember the number off-hand, but a quick search should reveal it. Thanks!

Best,

Seth

--
This mailing list is governed under the HashiCorp Community Guidelines - https://www.hashicorp.com/community-guidelines.html. Behavior in violation of those guidelines may result in your removal from this mailing list.
 
GitHub Issues: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues
IRC: #vagrant on Freenode
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vagrant" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vagrant-up+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vagrant-up/05457132-99c5-45c3-bfde-ee1c42d2934d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joaquin Menchaca]

I found, some were closed as not a bug, while other's solve the wrong problem
  https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/5072
  https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/5619

There may be others already filed, and there will be more.  My question now, having verified the issue, what does the community think (or is even interested)? I saw other community confusion (stackexchange, blogs) on this issue.

I think the chef-zero should stop using chef-solo, or have the provisioner be removed from the code completely.  It seems really pointless, other than having chef-zero installation automated, as their is not real provisioning taking place for chef-zero.

[Seth Vargo]

Hi Joaquin,

I am sorry you are having issues with the Vagrant chef-zero integration. I understand this may be confusing. Chef has changed/evolved a bit since the last release of Vagrant and some of these APIs have been changed/updated. In the past, chef-solo -z _used_ to launch the correct thing but that no longer appears to be true :).

We'll definitely fix this up for the next release. Thanks!

Best,

Seth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vagrant-up/c7bc91d9-f610-48f7-aa59-fd70c9ff7477%40googlegroups.com.

[Joaquin Menchaca]

Thanks.  As a new user to Chef, what is called "chef_zero" seems different that was the documentation from the makers of Chef are talking about.  This has caused widespread community confusion to newcomers, especially after Chef-Zero was introduced in 2012.

Outside the scope of chef_zero, Chef has been the most problematic for me.  I tried out puppet with node definitions and also using hiera, and it was not painful, but chef_solo, and chef_zero, have been painful (guess they are the same thing).  You cannot use nodes with them.  I can get such support with knife-solo or test kitchen as an alternative provider than Vagrant's chef provisioners (chef_solo, chef_zero).