# Chef-client dependency requirements of cookbooks?

**URL:** <https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-client-dependency-requirements-of-cookbooks/6737>\
**Category:** Chef Infra (archive)\
**Created:** [July 2, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-client-dependency-requirements-of-cookbooks/6737 "2015-07-02T18:46:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roland\_Moriz1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@Roland\_Moriz1](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Roland_Moriz1)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-client-dependency-requirements-of-cookbooks/6737/1 "2015-07-02T18:46:22Z")

</div>

Hi,

given the changes with each major chef release, would it make sense to add a metadata to cookbooks to define/limited the supported chef versions?

[https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html) [https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html)

Let’s say you have a cookbook that provides audit mode recipes, or using„sensitive“ attribute for file resources, or the recently introduced reboot resource. To some degree it’s okay to check each supported feature at run time and react accordingly, however some people are using really, really, really old setups nobody want’s to support anymore. E.g. 0.9.x and chef 10.

As a cookbook author I would prefer a explicitly exiting chef-client or "knife upload“ run, instead of some „silent working“ condition.

What do you think?

best regards  
Roland

PS: One could argue if the same also applies to „ohai“.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Steven\_Murawski](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/steven_murawski/32/1450_2.png) [@Steven\_Murawski](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Steven_Murawski)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-client-dependency-requirements-of-cookbooks/6737/2 "2015-07-02T20:17:50Z")

</div>

Hey Roland,

We’ve got an accepted RFC (#37) to support just that use case. [https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/332fe417d28995a9a696af24e0e27c173e255fff/rfc037-chef-ohai-version-metadata.md](https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/332fe417d28995a9a696af24e0e27c173e255fff/rfc037-chef-ohai-version-metadata.md)

I don’t know if there has been any progress on that front off hand, but I for one am eager to see that develop.

Steve

Steven Murawski  
Community Software Development Engineer @ Chef  
Microsoft MVP - PowerShell  
[http://stevenmurawski.com](http://stevenmurawski.com) [[http://stevenmurawski.com/](http://stevenmurawski.com/)]  
On 7/2/2015 1:46:44 PM, Roland Moriz [rmoriz@gmail.com](mailto:rmoriz@gmail.com) wrote:  
Hi,

given the changes with each major chef release, would it make sense to add a metadata to cookbooks to define/limited the supported chef versions?

[https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html) [[https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html)]

Let’s say you have a cookbook that provides audit mode recipes, or using„sensitive“ attribute for file resources, or the recently introduced reboot resource. To some degree it’s okay to check each supported feature at run time and react accordingly, however some people are using really, really, really old setups nobody want’s to support anymore. E.g. 0.9.x and chef 10.

As a cookbook author I would prefer a explicitly exiting chef-client or "knife upload“ run, instead of some „silent working“ condition.

What do you think?

best regards  
Roland

PS: One could argue if the same also applies to „ohai“.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roland\_Moriz1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@Roland\_Moriz1](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Roland_Moriz1)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 6:39am UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-client-dependency-requirements-of-cookbooks/6737/3 "2015-07-03T06:39:10Z")

</div>

Hi Steven,

> Am 02.07.2015 um 22:17 schrieb Steven Murawski [steven.murawski@gmail.com](mailto:steven.murawski@gmail.com):
> 
> Hey Roland,
> 
> We've got an accepted RFC (#37) to support just that use case. [https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/332fe417d28995a9a696af24e0e27c173e255fff/rfc037-chef-ohai-version-metadata.md](https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/332fe417d28995a9a696af24e0e27c173e255fff/rfc037-chef-ohai-version-metadata.md)
> 
> I don't know if there has been any progress on that front off hand, but I for one am eager to see that develop.

ah - thanks!

I’ve scanned the rfc filenames before writing the mail but was probably too tired to see this one, sorry :-/

regards  
Roland

> Steve
> 
> Steven Murawski  
> Community Software Development Engineer @ Chef  
> Microsoft MVP - PowerShell  
> [http://stevenmurawski.com](http://stevenmurawski.com) [http://stevenmurawski.com/](http://stevenmurawski.com/)On 7/2/2015 1:46:44 PM, Roland Moriz [rmoriz@gmail.com](mailto:rmoriz@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > given the changes with each major chef release, would it make sense to add a metadata to cookbooks to define/limited the supported chef versions?
> > 
> > [https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html) [https://docs.chef.io/config\_rb\_metadata.html](https://docs.chef.io/config_rb_metadata.html)
> > 
> > Let’s say you have a cookbook that provides audit mode recipes, or using„sensitive“ attribute for file resources, or the recently introduced reboot resource. To some degree it’s okay to check each supported feature at run time and react accordingly, however some people are using really, really, really old setups nobody want’s to support anymore. E.g. 0.9.x and chef 10.
> > 
> > As a cookbook author I would prefer a explicitly exiting chef-client or "knife upload“ run, instead of some „silent working“ condition.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > best regards  
> > Roland
> > 
> > PS: One could argue if the same also applies to „ohai“.