Skip to content

Conversation

jguiditta
Copy link

The problem with it being true by default is that the majority of production
environments, and any in an isolated nextwork, will not want to get the gpg key,
especially if they have not explicitly configured the module to get the rpm from
the rabbitmq repos. Having the gpg key pulled in by default while installing
the rpm from distro repos seems inconsistent at best, and at worst, causes an
additional fail point for deployments that are unable to contact this location.
Leaving it true by default forces the majority of production users to have to
override this setting.

@EmilienM
Copy link
Contributor

EmilienM commented Mar 9, 2016

@hunner any opinion on this? It sounds like the initial default value was not really a good choice, but this chance is likely now backward compatible...

@jguiditta jguiditta force-pushed the change_repos_ensure branch 2 times, most recently from 53c029d to fc75c29 Compare March 9, 2016 17:33
@hunner hunner added this to the 6.0.0 milestone Mar 11, 2016
@hunner
Copy link
Member

hunner commented Mar 11, 2016

I want to do a 6.0.0 soon, so it can go in that.

@jguiditta jguiditta force-pushed the change_repos_ensure branch from fc75c29 to 421c1f5 Compare March 18, 2016 17:44
let(:params) {{ :manage_repos => true, :repos_ensure => true }}
let(:facts) {{ :osfamily => 'RedHat', :operatingsystemmajrelease => '7' }}
it 'does import repo public key when manage_repos is true' do
it 'does import repo public key when manage_repos and repos_ensure are true' do
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please note this change. If you disagree with it, then it may be needed to look again at the logic in init.pp, as that checks for manage_repos != false as the condition to include repo class. Since this parameter is itself deprecated, it seems to me this logic should change, though it is not a requirement for this patch.

@jguiditta
Copy link
Author

Looks like this needs #451 based on output of the one version of tests that failed - https://travis-ci.org/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-rabbitmq/jobs/116965330

The problem with it being true by default is that the majority of production
environments, and any in an isolated nextwork, will not want to get the gpg key,
especially if they have not explicitly configured the module to get the rpm from
the rabbitmq repos.  Having the gpg key pulled in by default while installing
the rpm from distro repos seems inconsistent at best, and at worst, causes an
additional fail point for deployments that are unable to contact this location.
Leaving it true by default forces the majority of production users to have to
override this setting.
@jguiditta jguiditta force-pushed the change_repos_ensure branch from 421c1f5 to ea7e565 Compare May 4, 2016 19:46
@EmilienM
Copy link
Contributor

EmilienM commented May 4, 2016

@hunner do we plan to release 6.0.0 soon?

@wyardley
Copy link
Contributor

wyardley commented Aug 11, 2016

@hunner @EmilienM, sorry to hijack, but would love some feedback on https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-rabbitmq/pull/493, which also makes a lot of changes in this area (though still uses the same GPG key when the repo is ensured only). There's been some discussion about it in the Puppet Community Slack; would love to get some more ideas and for people more familiar with the codebase to review the changes. This also gets rid of $version, which wasn't honored / ensured for Apt / Yum anyway, and pulls out some confusing parameters that were already deprecated, like $manage_repos.

If the regular repos for Debian / Ubuntu have a recent-ish package, I'd be fine with switching to using those by default (vs. the RabbitMQ repo). I've tried to incorporate that change to be default in my other PR, and adjusted some tests accordingly.

If anyone has more ideas about whether SLES has an available package without any special configuration, that would also be helpful.

wyardley pushed a commit to wyardley/puppet-rabbitmq that referenced this pull request Aug 11, 2016
@trevor-vaughan
Copy link

👍 Always support isolated environments first. Nobody wants random repositories from the outside world magically showing up in their trust chain. Likewise, don't grab random tarballs from the Internet and install them without explicit permission.

@wyardley
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, defaults to false now in https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-rabbitmq/pull/493
I wonder if the naming is a little confusing (though I'd be hesitant to deprecate yet another variable, considering we just got rid of $manage_repos).

@eputnam
Copy link
Member

eputnam commented Feb 17, 2017

closing because #493

@eputnam eputnam closed this Feb 17, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants