The behavior difference makes sense to me.
package ‘tmux’, when not installed, should install the latest available
package, similar to the file resource - populate with the latest available
Adding modifiers to constrain the behavior, such as version and
create_if_missing, extend the behavior to a subset/specific set of rules.
Etsy had blogged about using package resources with upgrade taking down a
significant set of their code, not using the base install method, and
devised some foodcritic rules to help them prevent hitting that problem
again - by ensuring not using the upgrade action, and requiring use of a
version variable to prevent version mismatch.
I think the current behavior works, possibly needs some better
documentation for newcomers, but other than that I believe it to be simple
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Daniel DeLeo firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Brian Hatfield wrote:
No. I strongly object to this.
action :upgrade exists and is sufficient.
The question isn’t whether action :install and action :upgrade should
exist or have different behavior, but rather one of what default is most
desirable given the tradeoffs of each. By comparison, the default action on
a file is “create” which really means “create_or_update”; you can use
action :create_if_missing if you want to avoid updating the files.
If action :install performed upgrades, it would absolutely destroy things,
for example running MongoDB using the 10gen repos and having a 2.2 database
upgrade to 2.4 behind your back, etc.
The reason we bring this up is the flip side of this coin. If the package
in your repo gets updated, then a new machine you bring up with the same
recipes will create a different system than your machines you provisioned
before the repo update. This seems surprising, no?
So the question is one of
user expectations: What should
package "tmux" do when there’s a newer
consistency: Is it weird/confusing that files get updated by default,
but packages do not? Is it confusing that this default behavior means you
can build a box with the exact same recipes and get a different result?
pragmatic reason to be inconsistent: the risk of upgrading packages by
default is so great that it’s better if everyone using Chef learns that
this is inconsistent, and why, and how to deal with it.