I'm usually pretty happy with rake tasks. been using some of voxpupuli ones for my own modules, and I can run the same things than ci locally with this

@Björn Thoor indeed the "dependencies" and "mac os" sections were merged into the uppper one, just forgot to delete the headline

can I get a review for https://github.com/voxpupuli/.github/pull/4

binford2k++

binford2k +1! (Karma: 17)

I've mainly used pdf because I'm generally managing a server estate. 90% of the puppet work I do is going to be private, and in most cases wouldn't be shareable even if it was generic - but I want my team to write good, decently standards-conforming code with a solid test framework, and I don't want to have to spend my own limited dev time actually building that framework.

... pdk. :-D

Why wouldn't it be shareable?

bastelfreak: Because in most of the jobs I've had, anything I write for the job is owned by my employer, and while it's technically possible to share some code,that has generally meant a protracted discussion around legalities and support.

I'm very glad my current job has a nice legal cutout for contributing to open source projects.

I should write some content on why it makes sense to OSS your puppet content from the start, including templates and such making it easier for legal teams to rubber stamp it.

(And there's also the issue of whether it's even interesting to share. Sure, I have the freedom to write my own iptables module because none of the others work quite the way I want. Maybe someone else might find that useful, but it's likely to be limited to the things I need to support - and does the world really need another firewall module?

NOPE! And that's why the first section of the guide is on how to contribute to existing modules rather than start over.

binford2k: Yeah. But I have the power to write my own, and as I said - none of the existing ones actually does what I want :-D

https://bastelfreak.de/puppetize2021/#1 I made a whole talk about it

Well enhance existing ones?

bastelfreak++ yep, was thinking about that talk

bastelfreak gained a level! (Karma: 57)

bastelfreak: I'd basically need to rewrite the core of them. One shouldn't shoehorn ones own biases and preferences into a nice shared module, after all :-)

ccooke: wasn't implying that you did it wrong. Just meaning that the default is to first attempt to use an existing module, second attempt is to attempt to improve an existing module, and only third attempt is to write your own.

binford2k: oh, I know

if you need to write your own, then so be it. But at least evaluate the contribution options first :)

binford2k: Oh, I did

and the options definitely looekd to have improved since the last time I wrote my own firewall module

I spent a few days playing with the options first

binford2k: Look, it's just that I'm arrogant enough to think I know better how things should work and skilled enough to make what I want. That doesn't mean I actually know better than everyone else, or am any better at coding than the alternatives. :-)

lolololo that's quite quotable

(The fundamental issue I have with firewall modules, by the way, is that I like a module that does atomic updates using iptables-restore or the like. So you compile all the differences and apply a single update which either applies cleanly all at once or does not apply, leaving the firewall in the previous unmodified state)

^ can we have this in all of our firewall modules? :D