Update dependencies for ipynb

[davidski]

The attached PR makes the dependencies optimistic (>=) vs. pessimistic (~>). Some of the listed dependencies, particularly apt, are a bit crufty and are causing conflicts in my use cases. I've done some preliminary testing with optimistic matching and am not encountering any issues, though updating to current versions of the various cookbooks and re-locking in pessimistically would probably not be a bad idea.

Thanks for the cookbook!

[rgbkrk]

I've done some preliminary testing with optimistic matching and am not encountering any issues

That's the thing, we won't know until some later broken release.

However, since it seems these are crufty old releases, would you be ok with pinning to a more recent version instead that you know works?

I'll leave the real decision to @brint on versioning, he's actually using this in production. He's doing it the Berkshelf way though, so I think he's pinning to specific versions of all cookbooks.

[davidski]

Thanks for testing! Yes, I'd certainly support pessimistic testing to more current cookbooks. I agree that's a safer method. This was a bit of a hack to get a broken deployment up and running. I'll try identify the specific revision I'm working with for a more tightly focused PR. Off the top of my head, I know both the apt and python cookbooks have significantly newer releases, of which the apt cookbook updates are particular critical for me.

[brint]

@davidski @rgbkrk Six in one, half dozen in the other for the constraints. Either convergence starts failing for some people over time, or eventually new builds begin failing when X cookbook gets overhauled. I'm okay with using >= globally in this case since there are only five total dependencies. supervisor and nginx are the only two that worry me when it comes to potential breaking updates.

[davidski]

Any thoughts on merging this (or an equivalent)? Always nice to drop one's fork and get back to using the original source. :smile: