Cos, are you resolved?

We use "'--parser=future" (probably the same as --future) in the puppet
apply args for puppet3 on ubuntu-16.04.  The commit you referenced is to
ensure the jdk class is available even if the jdk has been pre-installed:

https://github.com/apache/bigtop/commit/40e796bd693a8bc6243ee39a6540357e1d559ea8

If there's an alternate way to define the jdk class to be more puppet 3 and
4 compliant, i'm all ears. Otherwise, don't you dare break it :)

-Kevin

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for the hints, Olaf. I recollect the conversion about --future
> stuff now.
> And I am using bigtop/puppet:ubuntu-16.04, which has puppet 3.8.5 on it.
> --
>   With regards,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > BTW,
> >
> > Bigtop/puppet is versioned now as well . bigtop/puppet:trunk-centos-7 is
> the
> > most recent one.
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.02.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Hi Cos,
> >
> > At least your command line is not quite up to date. It should read
> >
> > puppet apply $future
> > --modulepath=/bigtop-puppet/modules:/etc/puppet/modules:/
> usr/share/puppet/modules
> > /bigtop-puppet/manifests/site.pp
> >
> > $future == --future for puppet 3
> > and without for puppet version 4
> >
> > It is not possible to have one major version of puppet in bigtop, see
> > archive of dev.
> > /usr/share/puppet/modules is used used for more recent versions of puppet
> > because of the filesystem hierarchy standard .
> >
> > You may want to check if you have recent bigtop/puppet container.
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> > puppet apply -d
> > --modulepath=bigtop-deploy/puppet/modules:/etc/puppet/modules
> > bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests/site.pp
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.02.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>:
> >
> > I'm doing this in our official puppet container, so the version should be
> > aligned. Will dig more into this in the afternoon and report back.
> Thanks!
> > --
> > Regards,
> >  Cos
> >
> > On February 28, 2018 2:17:41 AM PST, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This may relate to the puppet version change. The gradle command should
> > work.
> >
> > Am 28.02.2018 um 10:35 schrieb Evans Ye <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Cos,
> >
> > Not sure what's the problem you encountered but form
> >
> > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Provisioner/job/Bigtop-
> trunk-deployments/
> >
> > I can see the Puppet deployment is doing well.
> >
> > Can you share more info? Env, config, command, etc.
> >
> >
> > 2018-02-28 14:34 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am trying to run the following command:
> >
> > puppet apply -d
> > --modulepath=bigtop-deploy/puppet/modules:/etc/puppet/modules
> > bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests/site.pp
> >
> > from the top-level directory of Bigtop source tree.
> >
> > to deploy some cluster configuration in a container. All I am
> >
> > getting
> >
> > though is this error message:
> >
> > Debug: Caching environment 'production' (ttl = 0 sec)
> > Error: Could not find class jdk for c41f94213de4 on node
> >
> > c41f94213de4
> >
> >
> > Looks like class jdk under bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests could not
> >
> > be
> >
> > found. The latest change related to this has happened in hash
> >
> > 40e796b
> >
> > (made by Kevin), but I am kinda sure I was able to deploy cluster
> > after that.
> >
> > Did something got changed which I missed and their new rules of
> >
> > using
> >
> > the recipes? Thanks for any leads!
> > --
> > With regards,
> > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >
> > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> >
> > author,
> >
> > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to