Landing bot currently down

[John Meinel]

5) use a non trunk branch of tarmac because of some needed bug fixes.

John
=:->
On Jul 26, 2013 9:22 AM, "John Meinel" <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

> This brings up an open question I have about charms. There are a lot of
> specifics about how tarmac needs to be configured for go-bot that does not
> seem appropriate for a generic "tarmac" charm. The ones that come to mind:
>
> 1) downloading the mongodb tarball because the ppa one for precise works
> in production (afaict) but fails the test suite with bad MAC messages. (Bug
> on lp)
> 2) configuring the generated crontab to add the mongodb to path (installed
> in /usr/local/bin is not in default crontab path)
> 3) add the golang ppa because of old go version on Precise
> 4) tweak GOPATH in crontab to point at the source directories established
> in the tarmac.conf file
>
> So we could have a go-bot specific tarmac charm. Or we could try to have a
> generic tarmac charm that handles if your project uses
> gcc/golang/python/java/javascript/php/etc...
>
> I will admit to not figuring out what is the Charm way once it got oast
> the point of being generic. (Spending time hacking on the tarmac charm wont
> give any 3rd party a better tarmac charm. So it is easier to edit the
> crontab than figure out where in the puppet+charm world it would fit to
> configure a very site specific tweak.)
>
> I was frustrated by it, but if there are good guidelines I'm willing to
> listen. (Site specific charm is better than trying to make a generic one?
> Where should it be hosted? Etc.)
>
> John
> =:->
> On Jul 26, 2013 9:06 AM, "Gustavo Niemeyer" <
> gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Martin Packman
>> <martin.packman at canonical.com> wrote:
>> > On 26/07/2013, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >> Since you have to recreate it either way, might be worth using juju
>> >> this time around.
>> >
>> > It used juju, that's the issue. The tarmac charm didn't do quite what
>> > we needed, so it had to get some manual poking after the fact. Part of
>> > the issue with just fixing the charm was it's puppet based, and never
>> > made it into the maintained set of charms we offer.
>>
>> So it used a charm, but it was manually hacked after the fact? If
>> that's the case, that still looks like an opportunity to fix the
>> charm, and I'd disagree that "using juju" was the issue.
>>
>>
>> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20130726/539b1e88/attachment-0001.html>