-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 193
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
(MODULES-3872) Updated to provide the ability to disable configuration of PE/FOSS repositories #152
(MODULES-3872) Updated to provide the ability to disable configuration of PE/FOSS repositories #152
Conversation
configuration of PE/FOSS repositories This is intended to enable users to utilize existing systems management tools and internally hosted repositories to ensure agent upgrades
Seems very useful. 👍 |
sslcacert => $_sslcacert_path, | ||
sslclientcert => $_sslclientcert_path, | ||
sslclientkey => $_sslclientkey_path, | ||
if $::puppet_agent::manage_repo { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you're not managing the repo, do you really want all the GPG key setup?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For my particular use case, I thought it was beneficial to still have puppet_agent install the gpg keys so there's no need to distribute them through another mechanism and the rpms could be loaded in internal repos without being re-signed.
That said, I could see the argument being made that if the ability to disable repo creation is there, then the same ability should exist for the gpg key.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Works for me, putting the gpg keys there shouldn't prevent any other configuration.
@highb have any other thoughts on this? |
Did you have any issues with the spec tests? There's probably a more elegant way to handle testing with and without the repos being managed, but I thought the tests were more straightforward if just split into separate with/without contexts |
Yeah, spec tests seemed fine. |
@MikaelSmith @exodusftw This PR is excellent and I'm 👍 from a code perspective after my cursory glance. Have we had a chance to run it through the acceptance tests yet? |
I have not. |
@highb passed an upgrade from PE 2016.1.2 to 2016.2.1 on centos6-64mcda-centos7-64a. |
Thanks @MikaelSmith @highb |
This is intended to enable users to utilize existing systems management
tools and internally hosted repositories to ensure agent upgrades