-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 244
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Problems with package install #389
Comments
@coderanger Could you please assist here? Do we actually need to replace |
As a quick hack I change the cached version of the cookbook to not give stuff from the options directly to the package resource, but used a temporary parameter in between. The source parameter wouldn't work in this case any way since apt_package doesn't support it. dpkg_package is required in that case. Removing checksum was also necessary, as the package resource doesn't have it. |
It now installs in my particular case from the repository, but this might require a bit more thought. :) |
Confirmed - the provider 1. Name "options" could not be used in the block of a built-in
|
Haven't had time to test it yet, sorry. I'll try as soon as I can. Looking at the changes, it looks better, but I think it will still fail on Debian based installs when you specify the source. I don't know what's the reason behind it, but if you do so, you get this error message from the |
@quulah I've appended the PR with a new commit, adding a new option - node.default['consul']['options']['package_provider'] = Chef::Provider::Package::Dpkg |
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
I've packaged consul as a .deb package, and have it in an internal repository. I've been trying to persuade this cookbook to install it by using the consul_installation with the package provider.
There's little documentation on the subject, and seems like the tests are limited too. The best I've got so far is giving the following options based on the suggestion in #383.
But this results in a warning about new_resource.options and NilClass error:
The program parameter seems to go to the resource properly, but I'm unsure how the rest of the options are interpreted. The error points to line 39.
Do the options from apt_package interfere as the warning suggests?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: