Debian Bug report logs - #787298
cloud.debian.org: Vagrant base box should include aptitude for Ansible

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martey Dodoo <bugs.debian.org@marteydodoo.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: cloud.debian.org: Vagrant base box should include aptitude for Ansible

Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 01:56:21 -0400

Package: cloud.debian.org
Severity: normal

http://docs.ansible.com/apt_module.html notes that Ansible's apt module
requires both python-apt and aptitude for full functionality. The Vagrant base
boxes currently only include python-apt.

Message #12 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 09:52:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I think that I won't agree that vagrant default box should include those
packages.

Simple explanations are:
 
1. it will take us further from standard Debian img
2. Ansible is not the only config mgmt soft which is used and to include at
  least the most popular will bloat base box very significantly (puppet, chef,
  salt, cfengine and more)

So, I'd say keeping those away from base image and allowing users to install
them in their own images is better idea then enforcing one over others or
installing all and having bloated base box.
-- 

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Ingemann <anders@ingemann.de>

To: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 10:58:22 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I think we are in need of some kind of policy here.
The idea of those images is that you can download them and they are
ready-to-use (which means pre-installing software).
This is in direct conflict with Debian branded images, because we want them
to be as close to the standard distribution as possible.

Vagrant supports multiple config management tools - should we split the
images up so that there are flavours (including vanilla - nothing
pre-installed)? The maintenance effort would of course be multiplied
because of that. I don't really have a preference either way, but this is
not the first time this challenge has arisen and we might be in need of
some general guidelines.

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:30 AM Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> wrote:

> I think that I won't agree that vagrant default box should include those
> packages.
>
> Simple explanations are:
>
> 1. it will take us further from standard Debian img
> 2. Ansible is not the only config mgmt soft which is used and to include at
>   least the most popular will bloat base box very significantly (puppet,
> chef,
>   salt, cfengine and more)
>
> So, I'd say keeping those away from base image and allowing users to
> install
> them in their own images is better idea then enforcing one over others or
> installing all and having bloated base box.
> --
>
> |_|0|_|                                          |
> |_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
> |0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |
>
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
> 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #22 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>

To: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 13:01:54 +0200

Hi, 

On Sun May 31, 2015 at 09:52:08 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> I think that I won't agree that vagrant default box should include those
> packages.
> 
> Simple explanations are:
>  
> 1. it will take us further from standard Debian img
> 2. Ansible is not the only config mgmt soft which is used and to include at
>   least the most popular will bloat base box very significantly (puppet, chef,
>   salt, cfengine and more)
> 
> So, I'd say keeping those away from base image and allowing users to install
> them in their own images is better idea then enforcing one over others or
> installing all and having bloated base box.

when you do "vagrant up", some sort of provisioning will happen,
wheather you do that with shell or any config management tool.

If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think
our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of
the box.

Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.

Cheers,
Martin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work!
-- 
 Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>    Debian System Administrator
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer                       Debian Listmaster
 http://about.me/zobel                               Debian Webmaster
 GPG Fingerprint:  6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D  BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B 

Message #27 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jan Niggemann <jn@hz6.de>

To: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:49:14 +0200

Zitat von Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>:

> On Sun May 31, 2015 at 09:52:08 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
>> I think that I won't agree that vagrant default box should include those
>> packages.
>>
>> Simple explanations are:
>>
>> 1. it will take us further from standard Debian img
>> 2. Ansible is not the only config mgmt soft which is used and to include at
>>   least the most popular will bloat base box very significantly  
>> (puppet, chef,
>>   salt, cfengine and more)
>>
>> So, I'd say keeping those away from base image and allowing users to install
>> them in their own images is better idea then enforcing one over others or
>> installing all and having bloated base box.
>
> when you do "vagrant up", some sort of provisioning will happen,
> wheather you do that with shell or any config management tool.
>
> If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think
> our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of
> the box.
>
> Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.
IMHO both views are justified, which makes this a bit difficult to resolve.

I thick we all agree with Marcin:
There are quite a lot of provisioners, i.e. Ansible, CFEngine, Chef,  
Puppet, Salt and Shell to only name those that are officially  
supported by vagrant.
==> Including all those provisioners in a single box doesn't really  
make sense. It makes the images unnecessarily large and most people /  
organizations only use one of them.
==> I like the way puppetlabs resolve this: They have several boxes  
with with one CF software each (plus one without any cf-mgmt tool at  
all):
https://vagrantcloud.com/puppetlabs

Once we have a fully automated build environment ready, that should be  
possible (provided the provisioners are DFSG compliant).

Sidenote related to the thread from the other day: I also like the way  
they set up the box name and description:
puppetlabs/debian-7.8-64-nocm Debian 7.8 (wheezy) 64-bit  
(amd64/x86_64), no configuration management software
puppetlabs/debian-7.8-64-puppet Debian 7.8 (wheezy) 64-bit  
(amd64/x86_64), Puppet 3.7.4

The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us  
further from the standard Debian image.
That is correct and IMHO the user shouldn't assume that any kind of  
provisioner is available out of the box.
If we only provide a bare basebox, the least we could do to help our  
users is provide info on how to install the config management tool of  
their choice.
Would including a short note in motd be appropriate?

Jan

Message #32 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Kasper <emmanuel@libera.cc>

To: Jan Niggemann <jn@hz6.de>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:09:13 +0200

> The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us further
> from the standard Debian image.

BTW, Was is actually a standard Debian image ?
To the best of my knowledge, I would define it as all the packages with
Priority: required and important.
According to the Debian Jessie installation guide [1], the *standard*
task is also recommended.

In server/containers environments it makes sense to restrict the list
of packages installed.
However the main aim of the Vagrant Virtualbox base boxes,are shareable
development environments.
In this kind of setup, I would expect the usual comfort of the debian
experience, having for instance a mail server to send stuff,
bash-completion or patch installed, all packages with come with the
standard priority.

So I am in favor of installing this task, which will bring aptitude as a
side effect.

Concerning the inclusion/removal of providers via specific boxes, why not.

[1] https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/i386/apbs04.html.en
Section: Package selection

Message #37 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:31:13 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 02/06/2015 7:12 AM, "Emmanuel Kasper" <emmanuel@libera.cc> wrote:
>
> > The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us further
> > from the standard Debian image.
>
> BTW, Was is actually a standard Debian image ?
> To the best of my knowledge, I would define it as all the packages with
> Priority: required and important.
> According to the Debian Jessie installation guide [1], the *standard*
> task is also recommended.
>
> In server/containers environments it makes sense to restrict the list
> of packages installed.
> However the main aim of the Vagrant Virtualbox base boxes,are shareable
> development environments.
> In this kind of setup, I would expect the usual comfort of the debian
> experience, having for instance a mail server to send stuff,
> bash-completion or patch installed, all packages with come with the
> standard priority.
>
> So I am in favor of installing this task, which will bring aptitude as a
> side effect.
>
> Concerning the inclusion/removal of providers via specific boxes, why not.
>
> [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/i386/apbs04.html.en
> Section: Package selection
Base boxes should be both provisionerless as well as stock as possible.

Vagrant plugins should be used to look after installing provisioners such
as your an ansible, puppet etc.

Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless and
the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.

> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/556CC9F9.9020508@libera.cc
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #42 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Ingemann <anders@ingemann.de>

To: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:19:18 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless and
the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.
This! Definitely the way to go. Is there anything required of the box for
that solution to work, or is all you need apt-get?

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:33 AM Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>
wrote:

>
> On 02/06/2015 7:12 AM, "Emmanuel Kasper" <emmanuel@libera.cc> wrote:
> >
> > > The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us further
> > > from the standard Debian image.
> >
> > BTW, Was is actually a standard Debian image ?
> > To the best of my knowledge, I would define it as all the packages with
> > Priority: required and important.
> > According to the Debian Jessie installation guide [1], the *standard*
> > task is also recommended.
> >
> > In server/containers environments it makes sense to restrict the list
> > of packages installed.
> > However the main aim of the Vagrant Virtualbox base boxes,are shareable
> > development environments.
> > In this kind of setup, I would expect the usual comfort of the debian
> > experience, having for instance a mail server to send stuff,
> > bash-completion or patch installed, all packages with come with the
> > standard priority.
> >
> > So I am in favor of installing this task, which will bring aptitude as a
> > side effect.
> >
> > Concerning the inclusion/removal of providers via specific boxes, why
> not.
> >
> > [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/i386/apbs04.html.en
> > Section: Package selection
>
> Base boxes should be both provisionerless as well as stock as possible.
>
> Vagrant plugins should be used to look after installing provisioners such
> as your an ansible, puppet etc.
>
> Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless and
> the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.
>
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/556CC9F9.9020508@libera.cc
> >
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #47 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Ingemann <anders@ingemann.de>

To: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:20:06 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:19 AM Anders Ingemann <anders@ingemann.de> wrote:

> > Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless
> and the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.
> This! Definitely the way to go. Is there anything required of the box for
> that solution to work, or is all you need apt-get?
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:33 AM Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02/06/2015 7:12 AM, "Emmanuel Kasper" <emmanuel@libera.cc> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us
>> further
>> > > from the standard Debian image.
>> >
>> > BTW, Was is actually a standard Debian image ?
>> > To the best of my knowledge, I would define it as all the packages with
>> > Priority: required and important.
>> > According to the Debian Jessie installation guide [1], the *standard*
>> > task is also recommended.
>> >
>> > In server/containers environments it makes sense to restrict the list
>> > of packages installed.
>> > However the main aim of the Vagrant Virtualbox base boxes,are shareable
>> > development environments.
>> > In this kind of setup, I would expect the usual comfort of the debian
>> > experience, having for instance a mail server to send stuff,
>> > bash-completion or patch installed, all packages with come with the
>> > standard priority.
>> >
>> > So I am in favor of installing this task, which will bring aptitude as a
>> > side effect.
>> >
>> > Concerning the inclusion/removal of providers via specific boxes, why
>> not.
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/i386/apbs04.html.en
>> > Section: Package selection
>>
>> Base boxes should be both provisionerless as well as stock as possible.
>>
>> Vagrant plugins should be used to look after installing provisioners such
>> as your an ansible, puppet etc.
>>
>> Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless and
>> the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.
>>
>> > --
>> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-request@lists.debian.org
>> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>> > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/556CC9F9.9020508@libera.cc
>> >
>>
>
I apologize for top posting btw. Still getting used to the new google inbox
:-)

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #52 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>

To: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>

Cc: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:36:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2015-05-31 13:01:54, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi, 

Hi Martin,

> If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think
> our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of
> the box.
> 
> Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work!

Honestly I do not know anybody who is using vagrant boxes without any
additional configuration.

All people I know messing around with them. So I think having minimal base and
allow users to build on top of it is a good thing.
I also have to agree that having base minimal box and multiply boxes with
different provisioners is having lots of sense; only problem with it may be
maintenance overhead but as Jan wrote this can be overcome with automated
build process.

Cheers,
Marcin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work as well :-)
-- 

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #57 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 19:04:41 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> wrote:

> On 2015-05-31 13:01:54, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> > If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think
> > our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of
> > the box.
> >
> > Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work!
>
> Honestly I do not know anybody who is using vagrant boxes without any
> additional configuration.
>
> All people I know messing around with them. So I think having minimal base
> and
> allow users to build on top of it is a good thing.
> I also have to agree that having base minimal box and multiply boxes with
> different provisioners is having lots of sense; only problem with it may be
> maintenance overhead but as Jan wrote this can be overcome with automated
> build process.
>
> Cheers,
> Marcin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work as well :-)
>

http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/provisioning/ansible.html
http://docs.ansible.com/apt_module.html

Either ansible via its vagrant provisioning should install aptitude or via
a vagrant plugin (or just use shell provisioning in vagrant).
Besides the fact that its completely silly design that the apt module
depends on aptitude, the problem is upstream and it shouldn't be included
in any base images.

In Chef, we've been going naked for a long time now :)

--
>
> |_|0|_|                                          |
> |_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
> |0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |
>
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
> 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #62 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martey Dodoo <bugs.debian.org@marteydodoo.com>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 05:59:01 -0400

Despite reporting this bug, I wasn't initially subscribed to it, so I am just 
catching up on the discussion.

According to the wiki <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Cloud/VagrantBaseBoxes>, 
the Vagrant base boxes include "Vagrant specific enhancements". One of the 
enhancements specifically mentioned is python-apt (which seems to have been 
specifically installed so that Ansible will work correctly).

I agree that it would be better if Ansible's apt module did not rely on 
aptitude, but it was incredibly confusing to try and figure what was happening:

- The previous unofficial Debian Vagrant base box I used included aptitude by 
  default.
- The cloud providers that I use all include aptitude by default in their 
  images.
- In order to successfully provision with Ansible's apt module and the official 
  Debian images, I needed to run apt-get update before installing aptitude.

Personally, I think that if third-party software like Chef or Puppet are 
installed in the base box (with all of their dependencies), it also makes sense 
to install aptitude so that upgrading packages with Ansible works properly.

Message #67 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:14:19 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Martey Dodoo <
bugs.debian.org@marteydodoo.com> wrote:

> Despite reporting this bug, I wasn't initially subscribed to it, so I am
> just catching up on the discussion.
>
> According to the wiki <
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Cloud/VagrantBaseBoxes>, the Vagrant base
> boxes include "Vagrant specific enhancements". One of the enhancements
> specifically mentioned is python-apt (which seems to have been specifically
> installed so that Ansible will work correctly).
>
> I agree that it would be better if Ansible's apt module did not rely on
> aptitude, but it was incredibly confusing to try and figure what was
> happening:
>
> - The previous unofficial Debian Vagrant base box I used included aptitude
> by   default.
> - The cloud providers that I use all include aptitude by default in their
>  images.
> - In order to successfully provision with Ansible's apt module and the
> official   Debian images, I needed to run apt-get update before installing
> aptitude.
>
> Personally, I think that if third-party software like Chef or Puppet are
> installed in the base box (with all of their dependencies), it also makes
> sense to install aptitude so that upgrading packages with Ansible works
> properly.
>
 Thats unfortunate, we need to fix this and make them provisionerless and
get rid of the 'enhancement' approach. Vagrant plugins and inline
provisioning
is the right way to do it (as demonstrated by Chef Software Inc.).


> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150602095901.GQ1381@marteydodoo.com
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #72 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>

To: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:49 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2015-06-02 20:14:19, Chris Fordham wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Martey Dodoo <bugs.debian.org@marteydodoo.com>
> wrote:

>     Personally, I think that if third-party software like Chef or Puppet are
>     installed in the base box (with all of their dependencies), it also makes
>     sense to install aptitude so that upgrading packages with Ansible works
>     properly.

I see no sense in installing aptitude to upgrade packages when apt-get is
already there. I just had a quick look into ansible apt module and have to say
it's a bit messy. It's utilising apt-get for dist-upgrade and aptitude for
full-upgrade. Probably this should be pointed out to ansible devs as suboptimal
solution.

>  Thats unfortunate, we need to fix this and make them provisionerless and get
> rid of the 'enhancement' approach. Vagrant plugins and inline provisioning
> is the right way to do it (as demonstrated by Chef Software Inc.).

I agree.
-- 

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #77 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>, 787298@bugs.debian.org

Subject: providing base vagrant boxes that both minimal and featureful

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:36:08 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:31:13AM +1000, Chris Fordham wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 7:12 AM, "Emmanuel Kasper" <emmanuel@libera.cc> wrote:
> >
> > > The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us further
> > > from the standard Debian image.
> >
> > BTW, Was is actually a standard Debian image ?
> > To the best of my knowledge, I would define it as all the packages with
> > Priority: required and important.
> > According to the Debian Jessie installation guide [1], the *standard*
> > task is also recommended.
> >
> > In server/containers environments it makes sense to restrict the list
> > of packages installed.
> > However the main aim of the Vagrant Virtualbox base boxes,are shareable
> > development environments.
> > In this kind of setup, I would expect the usual comfort of the debian
> > experience, having for instance a mail server to send stuff,
> > bash-completion or patch installed, all packages with come with the
> > standard priority.

In my experience, having a minimal image helps you with figuring out
what are the actual dependencies of your application and making sure it
will work on whatever environment it is deployed to.

> > So I am in favor of installing this task, which will bring aptitude as a
> > side effect.
> >
> > Concerning the inclusion/removal of providers via specific boxes, why not.
> >
> > [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/i386/apbs04.html.en
> > Section: Package selection
> Base boxes should be both provisionerless as well as stock as possible.
> 
> Vagrant plugins should be used to look after installing provisioners such
> as your an ansible, puppet etc.
> 
> Chef is already doing this where the bento boxes are provisionerless and
> the vagrant-omnibus plugin installs the version of Chef to your liking.

I agree, but I also agree that any provisioning should work out of the
box with the base box you provide. That said, it is possible to automate
the installation of all provisioners mentioned in /vagrant/Vagrantfile
when you bring the box up.

For example I have the following i my ~/.vagrant.d/Vagrantfile (which is
applied by Vagrant to every box I bring up):

----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<-----------------
Vagrant.configure(2) do |config|
  config.vm.provision :shell do |shell|
    shell.path = '/home/terceiro/bin/vm-bootstrap'
    shell.keep_color = true
  end
end

# vim: ft=ruby
----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<-----------------

that vm-bootstrap script sets up the box to use my local APT cache, and
installs vim, bash-completion and other goodies.

Last time I checked, every .box can also include a Vagrantfile which
will also be applied when it is brought up, before the
application-specific Vagrantfile. That could easily parse
/vagrant/Vagrantfile, figure out the provisioners used, and install them
with apt-get on the fly.

It could also install aptitude if that is needed for ansible (however
requiring aptitude when apt is already there is indeed odd IMO).

So I think we could have a base image that is both minimal and works out
of the box with whatever provisioner (provided it is available in the
archive, I guess).

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #82 received at 787298@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Jackson <anders.jackson@gmail.com>

To: 787298@bugs.debian.org, Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>

Cc: Chris Fordham <chris@fordham-nagy.id.au>

Subject: Re: Bug#787298: (no subject)

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:55:40 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Den 2 jun 2015 13:51 skrev "Marcin Kulisz" <debian@kulisz.net>:
>
> On 2015-06-02 20:14:19, Chris Fordham wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Martey Dodoo <
bugs.debian.org@marteydodoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >     Personally, I think that if third-party software like Chef or
Puppet are
> >     installed in the base box (with all of their dependencies), it also
makes
> >     sense to install aptitude so that upgrading packages with Ansible
works
> >     properly.
>
> I see no sense in installing aptitude to upgrade packages when apt-get is
> already there. I just had a quick look into ansible apt module and have
to say
> it's a bit messy. It's utilising apt-get for dist-upgrade and aptitude for
> full-upgrade. Probably this should be pointed out to ansible devs as
suboptimal
> solution.

Well, isn't aptitude installed by default by Debian?  I remember aptitude
being recommended before apt-get, at least previously, by Debian. So I
don't see any problems with that.

> >  Thats unfortunate, we need to fix this and make them provisionerless
and get
> > rid of the 'enhancement' approach. Vagrant plugins and inline
provisioning
> > is the right way to do it (as demonstrated by Chef Software Inc.).
>
> I agree.

Yes, it's easier to add packages then to remove.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #87 received at 787298-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Kasper <emmanuel@libera.cc>

To: 787298-done@bugs.debian.org

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:07:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Thanks for the initial bug report

Vagrant base boxes 8.1.0 and 7.8.5 available on Atlas now includes
'aptitude', as part the 'standard' task selection.

Please not that we don't install any provisioning tools anymore, you can
add a provisioner manually on first start as described here:

https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Cloud/VagrantBaseBoxes#Provisioners

Emmanuel

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.