Puppet users - Sep 2012 - Installing puppet and using ruby from RVM.

I''m setting up a pair of VM''s to do some puppet testing on,
and I am trying
to figure out how to install puppet without having the the system also 
install ruby.

I already have ruby installed through RVM, and I''d like to get puppet
to
use that ruby.

For the record, I''m using CentOS 6.3 as the OS for the 2 VM''s.
I have the
puppet labs repo installed so I''m getting the latest version of puppet 
straight from puppet labs.
rvm version 1.15.9 is installed and I have ruby 1.9.2-p320 installed 
(system wide) and set to the default.  I also ran ''rvm system''
so that ruby
is found at /usr/local/rvm/bin/ruby.

Unfortunately every time I start ''yum install puppet-server
puppet'' yum
wants to install ruby because rvm doesn''t tell yum that ruby is already
installed.

Does anyone know how to work around this?  in particular does anyone know 
how I can make puppet use the rvm ruby after I install everything?

Thanks!
  James "Zeke'' Dehnert

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/Pr12IvE0R8IJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Friday, September 21, 2012 1:14:56 AM UTC-5, jdehnert
wrote:
>
> I''m setting up a pair of VM''s to do some puppet testing
on, and I am
> trying to figure out how to install puppet without having the the system 
> also install ruby.
>
> I already have ruby installed through RVM, and I''d like to get
puppet to
> use that ruby.
>
> For the record, I''m using CentOS 6.3 as the OS for the 2
VM''s.  I have the
> puppet labs repo installed so I''m getting the latest version of
puppet
> straight from puppet labs.
> rvm version 1.15.9 is installed and I have ruby 1.9.2-p320 installed 
> (system wide) and set to the default.  I also ran ''rvm
system'' so that ruby
> is found at /usr/local/rvm/bin/ruby.
>
> Unfortunately every time I start ''yum install puppet-server
puppet'' yum
> wants to install ruby because rvm doesn''t tell yum that ruby is
already
> installed.
>
> Does anyone know how to work around this?  in particular does anyone know 
> how I can make puppet use the rvm ruby after I install everything?
>
>
You have a wrong concept: yum and rpm don''t care whether any particular
*
software* is installed, they care only about what *packages* (RPMs) are 
installed.  That''s why they don''t care about the Ruby
you''ve installed via
rvm.

As a system administration principle, I think it''s a rather poor idea
to
install software other than via the system''s native package management 
system.  Among other things, that means I have no use for rvm (or gem), and 
also that I build a fair number of packages myself.  If you ignore that 
principle, then you need to be aware that you thereby start down a slippery 
slope; in fact, you are beginning to discover that on your own.

So what can you do?  Here are some of your options:

1) Use the system''s Ruby packages.

2) Build and install your own Ruby packages (you can probably find some 
source RPMs to adapt)

3) Download the Puppet source and install it manually


John

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/CMBrtLtcYOUJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

John''s right. Yum and RVM will manage Rubies separately.

Is there a specific reason you want Puppet to use 1.9.2 instead of CentOS 
6''s version from yum repos (1.8.7)? I run CentOS on close to 100 hosts,
all
with 1.8.7 as the default install. A number of these also have RVM with 
various Rubies installed. What''s nice about RVM is that it gets you
away
from having to overwrite the system''s version of Ruby.

As long as we''re talking about installing from source, there''s
a 4th
option: use RVM''s Ruby 1.9.2-p230 to install the Puppet gem.
Instructions
are here (though you''ll need to adapt it to your specific 
environment):
http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/installation.html#installing-from-gems-not-recommended

Please note that neither installing from source or gem is recommended. 
You''re better off sticking with the native package management, as John 
suggests. Upgrading Puppet/RVM/Ruby could land you in hot water in the 
future.

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:14:56 PM UTC-7, jdehnert
wrote:
>
> I''m setting up a pair of VM''s to do some puppet testing
on, and I am
> trying to figure out how to install puppet without having the the system 
> also install ruby.
>
> I already have ruby installed through RVM, and I''d like to get
puppet to
> use that ruby.
>
> For the record, I''m using CentOS 6.3 as the OS for the 2
VM''s.  I have the
> puppet labs repo installed so I''m getting the latest version of
puppet
> straight from puppet labs.
> rvm version 1.15.9 is installed and I have ruby 1.9.2-p320 installed 
> (system wide) and set to the default.  I also ran ''rvm
system'' so that ruby
> is found at /usr/local/rvm/bin/ruby.
>
> Unfortunately every time I start ''yum install puppet-server
puppet'' yum
> wants to install ruby because rvm doesn''t tell yum that ruby is
already
> installed.
>
> Does anyone know how to work around this?  in particular does anyone know 
> how I can make puppet use the rvm ruby after I install everything?
>
> Thanks!
>   James "Zeke'' Dehnert
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/v3iWa1GJDhgJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Stephen Price <steeef@gmail.com>
wrote:
> John''s right. Yum and RVM will manage Rubies separately.
>
> Is there a specific reason you want Puppet to use 1.9.2 instead of CentOS
> 6''s version from yum repos (1.8.7)? I run CentOS on close to 100
hosts, all
> with 1.8.7 as the default install. A number of these also have RVM with
> various Rubies installed. What''s nice about RVM is that it gets
you away
> from having to overwrite the system''s version of Ruby.
>
> As long as we''re talking about installing from source,
there''s a 4th option:
> use RVM''s Ruby 1.9.2-p230 to install the Puppet gem. Instructions
are here
> (though you''ll need to adapt it to your specific environment):
>
http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/installation.html#installing-from-gems-not-recommended
Also ruby 1.9.2 isn''t very compatible with Puppet (at least
2.7.x).
>
> Please note that neither installing from source or gem is recommended.
> You''re better off sticking with the native package management, as
John
> suggests. Upgrading Puppet/RVM/Ruby could land you in hot water in the
> future.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:14:56 PM UTC-7, jdehnert wrote:
>>
>> I''m setting up a pair of VM''s to do some puppet
testing on, and I am
>> trying to figure out how to install puppet without having the the
system
>> also install ruby.
>>
>> I already have ruby installed through RVM, and I''d like to get
puppet to
>> use that ruby.
>>
>> For the record, I''m using CentOS 6.3 as the OS for the 2
VM''s.  I have the
>> puppet labs repo installed so I''m getting the latest version
of puppet
>> straight from puppet labs.
>> rvm version 1.15.9 is installed and I have ruby 1.9.2-p320 installed
>> (system wide) and set to the default.  I also ran ''rvm
system'' so that ruby
>> is found at /usr/local/rvm/bin/ruby.
>>
>> Unfortunately every time I start ''yum install puppet-server
puppet'' yum
>> wants to install ruby because rvm doesn''t tell yum that ruby
is already
>> installed.
>>
>> Does anyone know how to work around this?  in particular does anyone
know
>> how I can make puppet use the rvm ruby after I install everything?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>   James "Zeke'' Dehnert
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/v3iWa1GJDhgJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Friday, September 21, 2012 7:59:46 AM UTC-7, jcbollinger wrote:
>
> You have a wrong concept: yum and rpm don''t care whether any
particular *
> software* is installed, they care only about what *packages* (RPMs) are 
> installed.  That''s why they don''t care about the Ruby
you''ve installed via
> rvm.
>
> As a system administration principle, I think it''s a rather poor
idea to
> install software other than via the system''s native package
management
> system.  Among other things, that means I have no use for rvm (or gem), and
> also that I build a fair number of packages myself.  If you ignore that 
> principle, then you need to be aware that you thereby start down a slippery
> slope; in fact, you are beginning to discover that on your own.
>
I''m aware of the issues of installing software through source vs. pkg 
management systems.  I should have mentioned that I''ve been in IT for
over
20 years.  Its just puppet and ruby that are new to me, but I''m
learning
fast.  We are in agreement about sticking to one type of package 
management.  It much easier now that it was back when I was installing 
SunOS 4.1.4 on Sun 3''s and Sparc 2''s and compiling X11 from
source.
 
> So what can you do?  Here are some of your options:
>
> 1) Use the system''s Ruby packages.
>
> 2) Build and install your own Ruby packages (you can probably find some 
> source RPMs to adapt)
>
> 3) Download the Puppet source and install it manually
>
>
> John
>
I''ve considered all of these.  Does anyone know of a CentOS/RH repo
that
has the latest versions of Ruby available?  I have done some searching, but 
not exhaustively so, for a repo with  the most recent versions of Ruby, but 
no luck so far.  The reason I want to use ruby-1.9.2-p320 on these test 
VM''s is because in the production environment that these are mimicking
the
engineering folks are running that release, under RVM, and they want to 
avoid any installs of other versions to eliminate any chance of something 
getting pointed to an older version of Ruby accidentally.  The dev and 
production environments will both point to Ruby under RVM.

I ran into an issue like this once before where I needed to compile the 
latest version of Postfix to get access to a feature that was in the latest 
release.   Bit too soon after I ran into rpm prereq issues because the rpm 
system was saying that no mta was installed.  I eventually found a fake 
sendmail package, that installed nothing, but told rpm that sendmail was 
installed and that resolved the prereq issue without actually installing 
anything.

I was hoping someone might know some details about the rpm system that 
might allow me to tell it that ruby was installed without installing ruby, 
as with fake sendmail. Perhaps a lesser known tool that allows one to 
insert entries into the rpm database files.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/Hzg7HtK6FtkJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Friday, September 21, 2012 1:11:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Stanhke
wrote:
>
>
> > As long as we''re talking about installing from source,
there''s a 4th
> option: 
> > use RVM''s Ruby 1.9.2-p230 to install the Puppet gem.
Instructions are
> here 
> > (though you''ll need to adapt it to your specific
environment):
> > 
>
http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/installation.html#installing-from-gems-not-recommended
>
> Also ruby 1.9.2 isn''t very compatible with Puppet (at least
2.7.x).
>
I don''t mind installing a few things with gem, but I want to just stick
to
what the development folks are going to install that way.  In reality, I 
have no need for passenger or the other gems that are using.  But from a 
system management POV, gem is just another step away from yum/rpm which is 
not the direction I want to go.  I haven''t had time to read up on any 
puppet/ruby compatibility issues recently (another good reason for testing 
on VM''s).  Sounds like I should just install whats available through
yum
which is ruby-1.8.7.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/IFl2FlT-vaEJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On 09/22/2012 03:21 AM, jdehnert wrote:
> I''m aware of the issues of installing software through source vs.
pkg
> management systems.  I should have mentioned that I''ve been in IT
for
> over 20 years.  Its just puppet and ruby that are new to me, but
I''m
> learning fast.  We are in agreement about sticking to one type of
> package management.  It much easier now that it was back when I was
> installing SunOS 4.1.4 on Sun 3''s and Sparc 2''s and
compiling X11 from
> source.
If you were really aware, then you wouldn''t do it...


> I''ve considered all of these.  Does anyone know of a CentOS/RH
repo that
> has the latest versions of Ruby available?  I have done some searching,
> but not exhaustively so, for a repo with  the most recent versions of
> Ruby, but no luck so far.  The reason I want to use ruby-1.9.2-p320 on
> these test VM''s is because in the production environment that
these are
> mimicking the engineering folks are running that release, under RVM, and
> they want to avoid any installs of other versions to eliminate any
> chance of something getting pointed to an older version of Ruby
> accidentally.  The dev and production environments will both point to
> Ruby under RVM.
This is wrong approach. Try to figure out why is RHEL/CentOS and Suse 
Enterprise sticking to older version of ruby (or every other piece of 
software they distribute), and what are the benefits...

> I was hoping someone might know some details about the rpm system that
> might allow me to tell it that ruby was installed without installing
> ruby, as with fake sendmail. Perhaps a lesser known tool that allows one
> to insert entries into the rpm database files.
You are mangling with the system in a way it shouldn''t be mangled with.
Try to persuade your developers to use platform that is already used on 
production, and not vice versa.

If that doesn''t go quite right, then take src.rpm from RedHat/CentOS, 
bump version to 1.9.x - or whatever do you want to use, drop in newer 
sources, fix patches - and rebuild the RPM - or try to backport latest 
feodra build:

http://fedora.aau.at/linux/releases/17/Fedora/source/SRPMS/r/ruby-1.9.3.194-10.1.fc17.src.rpm

but that could bring you back to trouble because that version probably 
won''t be 100% identical to the one that your dev team uses (if they 
stick to sources). So we''re back to square one - you *have to* convice 
your team to use Ruby from RPM package - either fedora backport or 
standard RHEL 1.8.x.

Everything else _*will*_ bit you in the ass in the long run.



-- 
Jakov Sosic
www.srce.unizg.hr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On 09/22/2012 03:44 AM, jdehnert wrote:
> Sounds like I should just install whats available through yum which is
> ruby-1.8.7.
Sounds like a good idea.



-- 
Jakov Sosic
www.srce.unizg.hr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Friday, September 21, 2012 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Jakov Sosic
wrote:
>
> On 09/22/2012 03:21 AM, jdehnert wrote: 
>
> > I''m aware of the issues of installing software through source
vs. pkg
> > management systems.  I should have mentioned that I''ve been
in IT for
> > over 20 years.  Its just puppet and ruby that are new to me, but
I''m
> > learning fast.  We are in agreement about sticking to one type of 
> > package management.  It much easier now that it was back when I was 
> > installing SunOS 4.1.4 on Sun 3''s and Sparc 2''s and
compiling X11 from
> > source. 
>
> If you were really aware, then you wouldn''t do it... 
>
I haven''t done anything yet, except appeal to the puppet community at
large
for some insight 
> I''ve considered all of these.  Does anyone know of a CentOS/RH
repo that
> > has the latest versions of Ruby available?  I have done some
searching,
> > but not exhaustively so, for a repo with  the most recent versions of 
> > Ruby, but no luck so far.  The reason I want to use ruby-1.9.2-p320 on
> > these test VM''s is because in the production environment that
these are
> > mimicking the engineering folks are running that release, under RVM,
and
> > they want to avoid any installs of other versions to eliminate any 
> > chance of something getting pointed to an older version of Ruby 
> > accidentally.  The dev and production environments will both point to 
> > Ruby under RVM. 
>
> This is wrong approach. Try to figure out why is RHEL/CentOS and Suse 
> Enterprise sticking to older version of ruby (or every other piece of 
> software they distribute), and what are the benefits... 
>
Considering that the developers have been working on this for over a year, 
and they have their reasons for selecting RVM and Ruby 1.9.2, it''s not
my
call.  I''m here to bring as much consistency and reliability as I can
to
the systems that have been managed by the whims of the developers for quite 
some time.  I''ve made a huge amount of progress by basically giving
them
them some nice, clean, secure production systems that they aren''t
allowed
to manage.  I have helped them get to the point where they can use 
Capistrano to deploy the application, and we have partitioned Neo4j and 
Mongodb onto their own separate systems.  Now I''m working on deploying 
puppet to keep the systems consistent and allow me to do all that puppet 
can do to keep things in order.
 
> > I was hoping someone might know some details about the rpm system that
> > might allow me to tell it that ruby was installed without installing 
> > ruby, as with fake sendmail. Perhaps a lesser known tool that allows
one
> > to insert entries into the rpm database files. 
>
> You are mangling with the system in a way it shouldn''t be mangled
with.
> Try to persuade your developers to use platform that is already used on 
> production, and not vice versa.
>
Well, I suppose everyone has a different mandate at different companies.  
My current gig is at yet another start up and the company is engineering 
driven.  Given that I need to make sure that I don''t do anything that
steps
on engineering.  I''m not entirely under their thumb.  I insisted on
certain
conditions before I took this job, and that has allowed me to replace token 
security with real security.  Engineering and I have worked together very 
closely to help get them more compartmentalized to the application is now 
of a discrete unit, and not so much an electron cloud where they may have 
reached all over the OS.  I give them a reliable server, and they agree to 
keep the application contained.
 
> If that doesn''t go quite right, then take src.rpm from
RedHat/CentOS,
> bump version to 1.9.x - or whatever do you want to use, drop in newer 
> sources, fix patches - and rebuild the RPM - or try to backport latest 
> feodra build: 
>
>
>
http://fedora.aau.at/linux/releases/17/Fedora/source/SRPMS/r/ruby-1.9.3.194-10.1.fc17.src.rpm
>
> but that could bring you back to trouble because that version probably 
> won''t be 100% identical to the one that your dev team uses (if
they
> stick to sources). So we''re back to square one - you *have to*
convice
> your team to use Ruby from RPM package - either fedora backport or 
> standard RHEL 1.8.x. 
>
> Everything else _*will*_ bit you in the ass in the long run. 
>
That’s why I''m here asking questions.  Its good to minimize all the
future
ass biting that one can, which is also why I''m testing on a pair of
VM''s to
get puppet functional and worked out before it gets anywhere near a 
production system.
 
> -- 
> Jakov Sosic 
> www.srce.unizg.hr 
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/OEPaTlAP2QIJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On 22/09/2012, at 4:23 PM, jdehnert <jdehnert@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Jakov Sosic wrote:
> On 09/22/2012 03:21 AM, jdehnert wrote: 
> 
> > I''m aware of the issues of installing software through source
vs. pkg
> > management systems.  I should have mentioned that I''ve been
in IT for
> > over 20 years.  Its just puppet and ruby that are new to me, but
I''m
> > learning fast.  We are in agreement about sticking to one type of 
> > package management.  It much easier now that it was back when I was 
> > installing SunOS 4.1.4 on Sun 3''s and Sparc 2''s and
compiling X11 from
> > source. 
> 
> If you were really aware, then you wouldn''t do it... 
> 
> I haven''t done anything yet, except appeal to the puppet community
at large for some insight
> 
> > I''ve considered all of these.  Does anyone know of a
CentOS/RH repo that
> > has the latest versions of Ruby available?  I have done some
searching,
> > but not exhaustively so, for a repo with  the most recent versions of 
> > Ruby, but no luck so far.  The reason I want to use ruby-1.9.2-p320 on
> > these test VM''s is because in the production environment that
these are
> > mimicking the engineering folks are running that release, under RVM,
and
> > they want to avoid any installs of other versions to eliminate any 
> > chance of something getting pointed to an older version of Ruby 
> > accidentally.  The dev and production environments will both point to 
> > Ruby under RVM. 
> 
> This is wrong approach. Try to figure out why is RHEL/CentOS and Suse 
> Enterprise sticking to older version of ruby (or every other piece of 
> software they distribute), and what are the benefits... 
> 
> Considering that the developers have been working on this for over a year,
and they have their reasons for selecting RVM and Ruby 1.9.2, it''s not
my call.  I''m here to bring as much consistency and reliability as I
can to the systems that have been managed by the whims of the developers for
quite some time.  I''ve made a huge amount of progress by basically
giving them them some nice, clean, secure production systems that they
aren''t allowed to manage.  I have helped them get to the point where
they can use Capistrano to deploy the application, and we have partitioned Neo4j
and Mongodb onto their own separate systems.  Now I''m working on
deploying puppet to keep the systems consistent and allow me to do all that
puppet can do to keep things in order.
>  
> > I was hoping someone might know some details about the rpm system that
> > might allow me to tell it that ruby was installed without installing 
> > ruby, as with fake sendmail. Perhaps a lesser known tool that allows
one
> > to insert entries into the rpm database files. 
> 
> You are mangling with the system in a way it shouldn''t be mangled
with.
> Try to persuade your developers to use platform that is already used on 
> production, and not vice versa.
> 
> Well, I suppose everyone has a different mandate at different companies. 
My current gig is at yet another start up and the company is engineering driven.
Given that I need to make sure that I don''t do anything that steps on
engineering.  I''m not entirely under their thumb.  I insisted on
certain conditions before I took this job, and that has allowed me to replace
token security with real security.  Engineering and I have worked together very
closely to help get them more compartmentalized to the application is now of a
discrete unit, and not so much an electron cloud where they may have reached all
over the OS.  I give them a reliable server, and they agree to keep the
application contained.
>  
> If that doesn''t go quite right, then take src.rpm from
RedHat/CentOS,
> bump version to 1.9.x - or whatever do you want to use, drop in newer 
> sources, fix patches - and rebuild the RPM - or try to backport latest 
> feodra build: 
> 
>
http://fedora.aau.at/linux/releases/17/Fedora/source/SRPMS/r/ruby-1.9.3.194-10.1.fc17.src.rpm
> 
> but that could bring you back to trouble because that version probably 
> won''t be 100% identical to the one that your dev team uses (if
they
> stick to sources). So we''re back to square one - you *have to*
convice
> your team to use Ruby from RPM package - either fedora backport or 
> standard RHEL 1.8.x. 
> 
> Everything else _*will*_ bit you in the ass in the long run. 
> 
> That’s why I''m here asking questions.  Its good to minimize all
the future ass biting that one can, which is also why I''m testing on a
pair of VM''s to get puppet functional and worked out before it gets
anywhere near a production system.
>  
> -- 
> Jakov Sosic 
> www.srce.unizg.hr 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/OEPaTlAP2QIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
rvm is handy but most production systems shouldn''t  have internet
access.  I managed to create a graylog2-web rpm with bundler - bundle install
--standalone --deployment (but --standalone didn''t work for some
reason).  A +1 on consistency and sticking with one packaging system.  I have to
admit I''ve been tempted to set up a ruby/rvm/gem et al. ubuntu or
debian server that could just do whatever it wanted, but I decided against it
because of the security questions that resulted.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.