Add build config and tools #107
Conversation
dhollinger
force-pushed
the
build_tools
branch
2 times, most recently
from
407fd3c
to
deaa800
Compare
dhollinger
force-pushed
the
build_tools
branch
from
deaa800
to
31e104f
Compare
dhollinger
force-pushed
the
build_tools
branch
4 times, most recently
from
75a5170
to
6b9e27f
Compare
.travis.yml
Outdated
| @@ -14,19 +13,17 @@ before_script: | |||
| - ./cc-test-reporter before-build | |||
| - 'bundle exec rake db:migrate SINATRA_ENV=test' | |||
| script: | |||
| - 'bundle exec rake $CHECK' | |||
| - 'bundle exec rspec' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this make sense? Later on we set env: CHECK=test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We currently only have one check that we run on different ruby versions. I can remove the $CHECK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that makes sense. the travis config currently references the rake tasks rspec, test and test_and_report_coverage
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh, test runs both rubocop and rspec. Probably should run rubocop as a standalone test
build/vanagon/components/ruby-2.6.rb
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | |||
| component 'ruby-2.6' do |pkg, settings, platform| | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's the ruby version we vendor, right? Our rubocop config is optimizied for 2.5? Is that on purpose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not on purpose. I haven't messed with Rubocop in a long time, so I don't even know what would constitute optimization for ruby 2.6
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIK all the 2.5 syntax works on 2.6. But maybe we should open an issue and later on update the syntax to match Ruby 2.6 in rubocop? Or should we stay on 2.5 since that's what Puppet6 vendors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd stay on 2.5 for now since the app is built on 2.5
We package with 2.6, but if someone pulls directly, we want the app to still work on what they expect.
| After=network.target | ||
|
|
||
| [Service] | ||
| EnvironmentFile=-/etc/sysconfig/puppet-webhook |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this service run as root?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I simply used Puppet as a template and it runs as root. I think that will be required since all the Puppet directories are owned by root by default and this will be modifying files in those directories. I was unable to get it to work with any user other than root. :/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
okay. let's keep that for now and have a look at it later on.
| # --libdir ensures that we avoid the multilib (lib/ vs. lib64/) problem, | ||
| # since configure uses the existence of a lib64 directory to determine | ||
| # if it should install its own libs into a multilib dir. Yay OpenSSL! | ||
| configure_flags = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Arch linux also sets enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128
might be useful here too
source: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/openssl
No description provided.