Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ubuntu_supported_codenames should include trusty instead of natty #759

Closed
jeremiahsnapp opened this issue Mar 1, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Comments

@jeremiahsnapp
Copy link
Contributor

The Chef Server Downloads site for Ubuntu only lists 10.04 (lucid), 12.04 (precise) and 14.04 (trusty) so the ubuntu_supported_codenames attribute defined in the code linked below should be set to %w{lucid precise trusty}.

https://github.com/chef/chef-server/blob/12.4.1/omnibus/files/private-chef-cookbooks/private-chef/attributes/default.rb#L55-L56

The current value of %w{lucid natty precise} is causing people using chef-server-ctl install on Ubuntu 14.04 to fallback to the lucid repository, as seen in the code linked below, which ultimately results in the wrong add on package to be installed in some cases.

https://github.com/chef/chef-server/blob/12.4.1/omnibus/files/private-chef-cookbooks/private-chef/recipes/add_ons_repository.rb#L18

An example of a problematic package

$ apt-cache policy chef-ha 
chef-ha: 
Installed: 1.0.0-1 
Candidate: 1.0.0-1 
Version table: 
*** 1.0.0-1 0 
500 https://packagecloud.io/chef/stable/ubuntu/ trusty/main amd64 Packages 
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

vs.

$ apt-cache policy chef-ha 
chef-ha: 
Installed: (none) 
Candidate: 1.0.0-rc.3-1 
Version table: 
1.0.0-rc.3-1 0 
500 https://packagecloud.io/chef/stable/ubuntu/ lucid/main amd64 Packages 
1.0.0-rc.2-1 0 
500 https://packagecloud.io/chef/stable/ubuntu/ lucid/main amd64 Packages 
1.0.0-rc.1-1 0 
500 https://packagecloud.io/chef/stable/ubuntu/ lucid/main amd64 Packages 
1.0.0-1 0 
500 https://packagecloud.io/chef/stable/ubuntu/ lucid/main amd64 Packages

Note that apt wants to "upgrade" to the "rc" package.

@charlesjohnson
Copy link
Contributor

Resolved by #778.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants