Closed vills closed 7 years ago
IMHO, splitting icingaweb2
or classic-ui
recipes to its own cookbook should not make much of the difference. They are single recipe resource collection but have the dependency on icinga2
packages and services.
However, we can certainly merge recipes server_object_*
into server_objects
.
Perhaps, we can split recipe server_pnp
to its own wrapper cookbook.
Please let me know your thoughts. I do agree on the complexity of the cookbook.
I think updating the cookbook for Chef 13 may bring some simplicity.
As for my opinion, icinga(-core) and icingaweb is different services, that should be placed in different cookbooks. Maybe there is no need to split icingaweb2 and classic-ui, but sure core and web should be splitted.
We can return back here after updating cookbook for Chef 13.
SGTM
I have started working on splitting the cookbook. Will create issues shortly.
Local testing completed:
Pending:
New cookbooks.
If you need an additional opinion - drop the classicui cookbook. The config files and meta packages for that are gone in v2.8. icingaweb2
is the main developed UI :)
Thanks for your hard work in this 👍
Sure. I have already created and tested icinga2classicui
chef cookbook locally.
IMHO, we should keep cookbook chef-icinga2classicui
for now in favor of the community.
We can deprecate it post icinga2 v2.8
release.
Let me know your thoughts.
Never mind, v2.8
is out.
Created different cookbooks for icingaweb2
, icinga2client
, and icinga2repo
.
Closing.
Currently, cookbook logic is very complex. It is hard to maintain it.
How about to split this cookbook to different cookbooks? Let's say, cookbook for: