I do wonder if this is not Chef-server centric.
Having setup Chef-server locally, via vagrant, in order to pursue
continuous deployment, I have since moved to use Chef-solo.
In this respect I think Librarian-Chef is still where-it-is-at wrt
As Jay Feldblum notes, devops is still in a state of flux.
I've discussed some issues and possibilities with Jay in terms of the
production deployment of cookbooks, where they are obtained from and
I can't say, from memory, that he has agreed, but the ability to
remove '.git' is nice and hopefully over time Librarian-Chef will
fulfill its potential.
I think this is what is described by Bryan.
This is not the most convenient, but it has the substantial benefit
that my development environment, in terms of cookbooks/Cheffile, is
100% what my production environment is.
This is the reason I don't use :path in my Cheffile.
Scenario 1: developing an application
Imagine you are working on an application called "pvpnet". Pvpnet contains a
Berksfile and a Vagrantfile. The Berskfile contains a source with a path
location to an application cookbook on disk (:path =>
"~/code/pvpnet-cookbook"). You run the command "knife berks install
--shims". It installs the dependencies of the "pvpnet-cookbook" to a
directory on disk at "~/.berkshelf" (by default) and creates a directory at
cookbooks/ containing links to the cookbooks you just installed, including
the one defined by the :path source.
In vagrant you have a "cookbooks" entry in your cookbooks_path which points
to the shims directory made by Berkshelf. Now you are able to startup
Vagrant and Vagrant will always read the changes you are making to the
"pvpnet-cookbook" and it will pick up the dependencies of the
Scenario 2: developing a new cookbook
Imagine we aren't working on an application ourselves, but instead we're
working on the "nginx" cookbook. The cookbook contains a Berksfile with an
entry "metadata". This entry means to look at the current working directory
to find a metadata file and use this directory as a cookbook. We also have a
Vagrant file here pointing to "cookbooks" and, the same deal as the first
time through, you run "knife berks install --shims" to create the cookbooks/
directory of shims. Now when you run vagrant provision you will be using the
current contents of the cookbook you are developing.
Scenario 3: building your building your cookbooks
We use Jenkins at Riot, but this would go for any build server. Every
cookbook lives in it's own repository. Every repository is hooked up to a
Jenkins job that monitors changes. Every cookbook has a build script which
does the following thing (you need to do this part).
- Runs a bootstrap (Installs dependent gems and software)
- Using Berkshelf, gather the cookbook's dependencies (knife berks install)
- Unit test the cookbook (if you have unit tests)
- Lint test the cookbook with food critic
- Bump the version number of the Cookbook
- Upload the cookbook and it's dependencies to your Chef server for later
consumption via "knife berks upload"
This will setup your Cookbook with continuous delivery model to allow you to
rapidly deliver incremental updates of a Cookbook to your organization.
Scenario 4: building an application
Every piece of software you are building should have a very similar life
cycle to what I just outlined in Scenario 3. The difference is that you have
a Berksfile containing a source for your application's cookbook. You can
then gather it's dependencies and figure out what version of the cookbook
this application code should be deployed with. Then you can mark your built
artifact with metadata saying you want it deployed with X version of X
cookbook and lock your environment to deploy the app code with that cookbook
and that artifact version.
I can elaborate on Scenario 4 more, but it's less about Berkshelf at that
point and more a blog post about how to do continuous delivery with Chef.
reset (Jamie Stormbreaker) · GitHub
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Torben Knerr wrote:
I'm using librarian-chef and wouldn't know how else I should manage my
cookbook dependencies. It is great for resolving / downloading dependencies
from various sources (community site, git, local path) if you treat them as
"binaries" and I'm pretty happy with it.
But I'm also experiencing some friction when it comes to actively developing
on cookbooks which I want to upload to chef server during my test /
devlopment cycle. With librarian-chef I see only a few, all not ideal,
- do the full
git add . && git commit -am 'foo' && git push origin master && librarian-chef update cycle as mentioned by Bryan
- do active development using a
:path dependency, then when you have
changes do the
librarian-chef update cycle. When you are done testing
git add . && git commit -am 'foo' && git push origin master and switch
- do the changes directly in the $CHEF_REPO/cooksbooks directory
(dangerous: don't do
librarian-chef update / install or you will lose
everything!!!), and when you are done testing replay the changes to your
original cookbook source (might be suitable for tiny changes only)
@Jamie: can you give us a quick comparison on the differences of
librarian-chef and berkshelf? would berkshelf better support the scenario
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Jamie Winsor email@example.com
That's the piece that I mentioned earlier today. We'll make a better
announcement once we've got the proper documentation and examples in place.
reset (Jamie Stormbreaker) · GitHub
On Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, AJ Christensen wrote:
ohai, just saw this:
GitHub - berkshelf/berkshelf: A Chef Cookbook manager
On 23 June 2012 20:45, Bryan Berry firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I don't quite understand your point. Are you are saying that Librarian-chef
isn't meant to meet the particular use case I have described and should be
looking for a separate tool?
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Jay Feldblum email@example.com wrote:
The various rigorous practices that developers have are often
well-supported by their tools.
The same practices are not as well-supported by the devops tools because
these tools are still being built and because the ideas and practices are
still coming across. Devops as a field is still under construction.
In the meantime: you mix and match, you pick your battles, and you do what
you have to do.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Bryan Berry firstname.lastname@example.org
alright, I have a pretty heterodox idea of how I would like to use
librarian-chef so that a team of infrastructure devs can work in sync
I am on a team of 3 infrastructure devs, i am the (relative) expert, the
other 2 guys are smart but n00bs
I want us to have one common Cheffile in our one common chef-repo
the cookbooks we develop independently each have their own git repo,
unfortunately, private ones for the most part
When I create a new git repository for application-foo, I want to add the
git repository link, branch name/tag/commit name, to Cheffile so that when
the other guys are working, they can easily pull in the cookbooks that I am
working on and vice versa
However, I dont want to do the
git add . && git commit -am 'foo' && git push origin master && librarian-chef update dance when I am actively
working on a cookbook that is within an "active" cookbook.
I don't need librarian to resolve any dependencies for my active
cookbooks, I just want a common file w/ the list of all cookbooks we are
working on as a team and i want librarian to download them if they don't
Perhaps this is a perversion of all things bundler but this is what I
want. It also would get much more complicated if we didn't have git repos w/
shared commit access.
Is this crazy or a good idea or both?