I’m just wondering how Chef Software (or whatever the company name is in this current moment) can manage to make chef more and more unfriendly to automation when it comes to packaging?
Way back when chef-client was at version 10, there was a public apt repository at http://apt.opscode.com/ that you could install chef from or mirror from. Easy, a official apt repository correctly setup, publicly available gpg key for the repo.
Then chef was moved to packagecloud.io, and they broke the automatic mirroring, cause packagecloud.io doesn’t support http headers correctly.
So basically you had to update the mirror by deleting the mirror cache for apt-mirror, which in a sense could be automated.
I see that the package repository for chef-client for ubuntu have changed place to https://packages.chef.io/stable/
No repository stuff, just a flat file structure, no gpg keys for the packages, nothing.
I don’t get it, does Chef software not want us to install chef? Or does they want us to package it ourselves? Perhaps the want the community to start using some other tool that is easier to install?
Sadly I’m to invested in chef to switch to another configuration management tool with ease…
Look at the install instructions for ansible for ubuntu:
sudo apt-get install software-properties-common sudo apt-add-repository ppa:ansible/ansible
sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install ansible
They have a repository with gpg keys and everything becomes simple, using deb packages in a apt repository as it was intended.
To Chef Software, sharpen up, a software company of your size should have any problem building repositories for different OS’es.