On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 15:57 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
> So (Paul Lathrop will correct me if I'm wrong, I hope), it looks like  
> we decided on the following simplistic metadata for modules:
> 
> * version
> * name
> * author
> * source (i.e., a URL)
> * requires

I just looked through gem2rpm to see what metadata we'd need to
automatically generate RPM spec files from module metadata.

>From the above list we'd need name, version, and requires; we'd need two
URL's: what RPM calls 'URL', a pointer to some project page (where
humans would go) and a Source URL, which points to a tarball or similar
of a released module.

In addition:

      * Summary: a one line summary of what the module does
      * Description: a longer, human readable description of the module
      * Required puppet version (this could eventually sprout into
        dependencies on specific versions of other packages outside of
        puppet if you know your module will trigger bugs in them, e.g.
        ruby-selinux >= $version, though that's not needed now; it will
        become an issue for modules that contain plugins)
      * List of files in the module with an indication of whether they
        are 'normal', docs or config - since for now, modules only
        contain 'normal' files, besides the license, that can be added
        in the future
      * Standardize the name of the license file (COPYING or LICENSE)
      * a License tag that indicates what license it is. For RPM, it
        would be easiest if the values for that tag were directly the
        ones from the Short Names column in [1] - if other short names
        are used, we'd need to map them, which isn't that big a deal.
        But that list needs to be documented on the Wiki.

We should also settle on a recommendation for where to put 3rd party
modules. I cleverly added /usr/share/puppet/modules[2] to the default
module search path way back when - that's what I would use as the
recommended place for 3rd party modules; the generated spec file can
easily place files there.

David

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
[2] I am assuming that we will never ever have modules with arch
specific content, i.e. with binaries that need to be built from source


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to