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 =:-> <div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 26, 2013 9:06 AM, "Gustavo Niemeyer" <<a href="mailto:gustavo.niemeyer@canonical.com">gustavo.niemeyer@canonical.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Martin Packman <<a href="mailto:martin.packman@canonical.com">martin.packman@canonical.com</a>> wrote: > On 26/07/2013, Gustavo Niemeyer <<a href="mailto:gustavo.niemeyer@canonical.com">gustavo.niemeyer@canonical.com</a>> 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 @ <a href="http://niemeyer.net" target="_blank">http://niemeyer.net</a> </blockquote></div>