https://www.puppet.com/community logo
Join Slack
Powered by
# voxpupuli
  • r
    @Ananace may you have a look here? https://github.com/voxpupuli/puppet-k8s/issues/37 ... since PR #30 etcd ca behaves differently for me
  • v
    Could PR 32 be related?
  • v
    Actually, probably not, since it's the CA itself that rebuilds
  • r
    i reverted back to commit 586148451ccf7cbc9f2027ce1b1d5745a48b56d8.
  • y
    Sorry guys, I didn’t thought about the dynamic interfaces..
  • t
    At some point we're going to need to step up from quarterly migration appellations to the 
    sssd
    module. :D
  • v
    that looks painful voxel____
  • v
    client doin funny stuff ;)
  • r
  • r
    @Ananace why is service-account.key only managed in terms of user perms, if generate_ca is activated? ist it need on every controller? and therefore should be managed, like all other files in cert dir? https://github.com/voxpupuli/puppet-k8s/blob/master/manifests/server/tls.pp#L185
  • v
    Managing it if generate_ca isn't set would just result in the module creating a zero-byte file, which isn't very useful.
  • r
    it does the same for all other ca related files. but when i copy them over, it corrects my file permissions, only not for this file
  • v
    Right, I guess it would make sense to keep things consistent in that regard
  • c
    Anyone know if it’s possible to tell RSpec to run tests via an alternative shell? E.g
    Copy code
    default => bash
desired => zsh
  • c
    Anyone know if it’s possible to tell RSpec to run tests via an alternative shell? E.g
    Copy code
    default => bash
desired => zsh
  • v
    o/
  • v
    smortex: o/
  • v
    https://github.com/voxpupuli/puppet-archive/pull/491 I quite agree with merging and releasing if it helps testing against Puppet 8. Do you think we should still wait a few days?
  • v
    first I would like to understand why that change is actually required
  • v
    my understanding is that it is a stdlib gem and present in ruby
  • v
  • v
    Yup, the fact that FreeBSD maintainer decide to package it separately made me think it was probably not worth changing the behavior, but GitHub action beeing affected too is weird.
  • v
    Do GitHub publish some info on how their actions work / containers are built?
  • v
    after some talk with the ruby devs I can say they highly recommend vendoring the default/std gems in the ruby package
  • v
    in arch linux we tried to split it and and that basically broke them
  • v
    I would like to know if the github ruby version is broken as well or if our code actully does something wrong
  • v
    so we use https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby to install ruby
  • v
    and looks like https://github.com/ruby/ruby-builder is used to build the ruby versions we use
  • v
    looks like it build just https://github.com/ruby/ruby but does not gather the std gems
  • v
    it install JSON after building before running tests
1...413414415...648Latest