I have a Django site placed in folder site/. It's under version control. I use South for schema and data migrations for my applications. Site-specific applications are under folder site/ so they are all version-controlled along with their migrations.
I manage a virtualenv to keep third party components dry and safe. I install packages via PyPI. The installed packages' list are frozen in requirements.txt so the they can be easily installed in another environment. The virtualenv is not under VCS. I think it is a good way if virtualenv can be easly deleted and reconstructed at any time. If I need to test my site, for instance, using another version of Python interpreter, simply activate another virtulalenv.
I'd like to use South for third party packages, though. Here comes the problem. Migration scripts stored in the application's folder so they are outside of my site's repository. But I want migration scripts to be under version control so I can run them on different stages as well.
I don't want to version control the whole virtualenv but the migration scripts for third party applications. How can I resolve this conflict? Is there any misconcept in my scenario?
The SOUTH_MIGRATION_MODULES setting allows you to put migration modules for specified apps wherever you want them (i.e. inside your project tree).
I think it depends a litte bit on your version control system. I recommend to use a sparse tree, one that only manages the migration folders of the various packages. Here I see two alternatives:
Make a truly sparse tree for all packages, one that you check out before creating the virtualenv. Then populate the virtualenv, putting stuff into the existing folders.
Collect all migrations into a separate repository, with a folder per project/external dependency. Check this out into the virtualenv, and create symlinks, linking from each project to its migration folder.
In either case, I believe you can arrange for the migrations to exist as a separate project, so you can install it with the same process as you install everything else (easy_install/pip/whatever).
Related
I am writing a bitbake recipe to deploy a third party pre-built tool, similar to this wiki page: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/TipsAndTricks/Packaging_Prebuilt_Libraries
However, I have a Release and Debug pre-build versions of the tool available as *.so files. How do I distinguish inside the recipe which one of both build types I shall deploy?
Thanks and regards,
Martin
You can have two different virtual recipes each with their own .so file. This then warrants a selection in a configuration file (with PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/my-recipe), so either in a machine or distro configuration file. This is probably preferred if you consider having release and debug distros.
A second option is to install the libraries in two different paths, in two different PACKAGES (use FILES_my-package for that) and make them RCONFLICTS_my-package each other to be sure they can't both be in the rootfs. After that, you could write a pkg_postinst_my-package() task specific to each package that actually move the library from the "different" path to the intended one. This will be run both at build time when creating the rootfs and at runtime on first boot, so you need to make sure to exclude one or the other (it's usually done by checking if ${D} exists, which does at build time but not runtime).
c.f.: http://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/dev-manual-common-tasks.html#post-installation-scripts
If you can manage to have both libraries installed in your rootfs and select the one you want with the LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, a simple recipe, with two packages with each library in a different location, will be sufficient.
I maintain multiple Perl written (unix-ish) applications whose current installation process consists of a manually written Makefile and installs configuration files into /etc/.
I'd really like to switch their development to use Dist::Zilla, but so far I haven't found any Dist::Zilla plugin or feature which allows me to put given files into /etc/ when the make install (or ./Build install in case of using Module::Build instead of ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is run by the local administrator who's installing my application.
With pure ExtUtils::MakeMaker, I could define additional make targets in MY::postamble and the let the install target depend on one of them via the depend { install => … } attribute. Doing something similar, but via dzil build, would probably suffice, but I'd appreciate a more obvious way.
One orthogonal approach would be to make the application not to require the files under /etc/ to exist, but for just switching to Dist::Zilla that seems to much change in the actual code despite I only want to change the build system for now.
For the curious: the two applications I currently have in mind for switching to Dist::Zilla are xen-tools and unburden-home-dir.
The best thing to do is to avoid installing files into /etc from any Perl distribution. You cannot ensure that the cpan client (or the installing user) has permissions to install there, and there can be multiple Perls installed on a system, so each one of them would clobber the /etc files of another install. You can't really prevent the file from being overwritten by a subsequent install, so you shouldn't put config data there that you don't want to lose.
You could put the config file in /etc/, if the application knows to look for it there, but you should allow for that path to be customized (say on a test system, look for the file in the local directory, or in a user's home directory).
For installing read-only module-specific data, the best practice in Perl is to install into a Perl-install-specific location, and the module to do that is File::ShareDir::Install. You can use it from Dist::Zilla using the [ShareDir] plugin, Dist::Zilla::Plugin::ShareDir. It is even included in the [#Basic] plugin bundle, so if you use [#Basic] in your dist.ini, you don't need to do anything at all, other than drop your data files into the share/ directory in your distribution repository.
To access the contents of the sharedir from code, use File::ShareDir.
For porting a complex module installer to Dist::Zilla, I recommend my plugins MakeMaker::Custom or ModuleBuild::Custom, depending on which installer you prefer. These allow you to keep your existing Makefile.PL or Build.PL and just have Dist::Zilla plug in necessary bits like the dependencies.
I posted this question looking for something similar to Buildout for Perl. I think Shipwright is what I'm looking for but I'm not really sure. I've played around with it and I created a project, imported all of my source and dependencies and I've exported everything to a vessel then the documentation sort of just stopped. What do I do with a shipyard vessel? Do I do my actual development work in the vessel, or do I do my development in the Shipyard? I'm assuming that the vessel is only for deployment, but how do I actually deploy a vessel to a web server (say I'm using linux, apache and just running straight cgi).
Is Shipwright the right thing for what I'm trying to accomplish or is there something else that would be more appropriate? Ideally I could use Shipwright similar to how I use Buildout. I use Buildout to create a nice isolated environment for my development, and also I use Buildout when deploying to live servers to manage all of my application's dependencies.
EDIT: Here are the highlights of what I can do with Buildout that I would like to be able to do in Perl.
With Buildout, I have a file in my codebase that lists dependencies (which for Perl would either be CPAN modules or other source repositories). I can run a bootstrap script that will fetch all of those dependencies and drop them into a directory within my project and NOT install them at a system level. Buildout also creates utility scripts which can do anything you want (run tests, other command line tools, anything really) and those scripts explicitly add the dependencies to the path so that as my scripts are running all of my dependencies are available to be imported.
What this really does very well is that it allows me to manage my dependencies without having to ever install anything at a system level. Which makes changing from one version to another very easy. Also, it allows me to have multiple Buildout projects running on the same system using different versions of the same module. Finally, one huge benefit is that with Buildout's directory structure, I can just commit the dependencies to source control and to deploy to a new machine I just need to do a checkout and all of my dependencies are already satisfied without having to touch anything installed at a system level.
I don't think you'll find anything exactly like Buildout in Perl, but you could put together a couple of things that would do the trick.
You could use a standard Build.PL script for Module::Build for managing your dependencies and having commands to run tests, etc.
Then you could use cpanminus to do the installation of those dependencies into a local (non-system) directory.
Then you might be able to use Shipwright to do the bundling and deployment of the project with these now-local dependencies.
I have several applications that I wish to deploy using rpm. Some of the files in my application deployments override files from other deployed packages. Simply including the new files in the deployment package will cause rpm conflicts.
I am looking for the proper way to use rpm to update/replace already installed files.
I have already come up with a few solutions but nothing seems quite right.
Maintain custom versions of the rpms containing the original files.
This seems like a large amount of work for a relatively small reward even though it feels less like a hack than some of the other possible solutions.
Include the files in the rpm with another name and copy them over in the post section.
This would work but will mean littering the system with multiple copies of the files. Also it means additional maintenance in the rpm build spec for each file.
Use wget in the post section to replace the original files from some known server.
This is similar to the copy technique but the files wouldn't even live in the rpm. This might act like a nice central configuration authority though.
Deploy the files as new files, then use symlinks to override the originals.
This is also similar to the copy technique but with less clutter. The problem here is that some files don't behave well as symlinks.
To the best of my knowledge, RPM is not designed to permit updating / replacing existing files, so anything that you do is going to be a hack.
Of the options you list, I'd choose #1 as the least bad hack if the target systems are systems that I admin (as you say, it's more work but is the cleanest solution) and a combination of #2 and #4 (symlinks where possible, copies where not) if I'm creating the RPMs for others' systems (to avoid having to distribute a bunch of RPMs, but I'd make it very clear in the docs what I'm doing).
You haven't described which files need to be updated or replaced and how they need to be updated. Depending on the answers to those questions, you may have a couple of other options:
Many programs are designed to use a single default configuration file and also to grab configuration files from a .d subdirectory. For example, Apache uses /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf and /etc/httpd/conf.d/*.conf, so your RPMs could drop files under /etc/httpd/conf.d instead of modifying /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf. And if the files that you need to modify are config files that don't follow this pattern but could be made to, you can suggest to the package maintainers that they add this capability; this wouldn't help you immediately but would make future releases easier.
For command-line utilities like sendmail and lpr that can be provided by multiple packages, the alternatives system (see man alternatives) permits more than 1 RPM that provides these utilities to be installed side by side. Again, if the files that you need to modify are command-line utilities that don't follow this pattern but could be made to, you can suggest to the package maintainers that they add this capability.
Config file changes on systems that you administer are better managed through a tool like Cfengine or Puppet rather than through custom RPMs. I think that Red Hat favors Puppet.
If I were creating the RPMs for systems I don't administer, I'd consider using a third-party tool like Bitrock and dumping all of my stuff under /opt just so I wouldn't have to stomp on files installed by other admins' RPMs.
Edit (2019): Nowadays, Software Collections offers a useful alternative. You can create packages that install somewhere under /opt, and the Software Collections tools offer a standardized way for users to opt in to using those instead of whatever's normally installed under /usr. Red Hat uses this to distribute newer versions of tools for their otherwise stable and long-lived (i.e., older) Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions.
You can also execute rpm -U --replacefiles --replacepkgs ..., which will give you what you want.
See here for more info on RPM %files directives:
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html
You can use the arguments from the %post and %pre sections in the RPM scriptlets to determine if you are installing, upgrading or removing packages.
If $1 is 0 - then we're removing old stuff. Targeting 0 packages installed.
If $1 is 1 - then we're installing new stuff. Targeting a total of 1 package to be installed.
If $1 is 2 or more - then we're upgrading this package and $1 represents the number of packages already installed.
These sections help with managing files among the versions.
Keep track of what you're doing between versions and consider what one might do if they were to skip a version or two.
Have consideration for these things and you should be good to go!
I've got a number of batch processes that run behind the scenes for a Linux/PHP website. They are starting to grow in number and complexity, so I want to bring a small amount of process to bear on them.
My source tree has a bunch of cpp files and scripts, organized with development but not deployment in mind. After compiling all the executables, I need to put various scripts and binaries on a cluster of machines. Different machines need different executables, scripts, and config files for their batch processes. I also have a few of tools that I've written that belong on every machine. At the moment, this deployment process is manual and error prone.
I'm guessing I'm just going to end up with a script that runs at the root of the source tree and builds a smaller tree of everything necessary for any of the machines. Then, I'll just rsync that to the appropriate machines. But I'm curious how other people are managing this type of problem. Any ideas?
There are a several categories of tool here. Some people use a combination of tools from these categories. I sometimes use, for example, both Puppet and Capistrano. See Puppet or Capistrano - Use the Right Tool for the Job for a discussion.
Scripting Tools aimed at Deploying an Application:
The general pattern with tools in this category is that you create a script and/or config file, often with sets of commands similar to a Makefile, and the tool will ssh over to your production box, do a checkout of your source, and run whatever other steps are necessary.
Tools in this area usually have facilities for rollback to a previous version. So they'll check out your source to releases/ directory, and create a symbolic link from "current" to "releases/" if all goes well. If there's a problem, you can revert to the previous version by running a command that will remove "current" and link it to the previous releases/ directory.
Capistrano comes from the Rails community but is general-purpose. Users of Capistrano may be interested in deprec, a set of deployment recipes for Capistrano.
Vlad the Deployer is an alternative to Capistrano, again from the Rails community.
Write your own shell script or Makefile.
Options for getting the files to the production box:
Direct checkout from source. Not always possible if your production boxes lack development tools, specifically source code management tools.
Checkout source locally, then tar/zip it up. Use scp or rsync to copy the tarball over. This is sometimes preferred for something like an Amazon EC2 deployment, where a compressed tarball can save time/bandwidth.
Checkout source locally, then rsync it over to the production box.
Packaging Tools
Use your OS's packaging system to generate packages containing the files for your app. Create a master package that has as dependencies the other packages you need. The RubyWorks system is an example of this, used to deploy a Rails stack and sample application. Then it's a matter of using apt, yum/rpm, Windows msi, or whatever to deploy a given version. Rollback involves uninstalling and reinstalling an old version.
General Tools Aimed at Installing Apps/Configs and Maintaining a Set of Systems
These tools do not specifically target the problem of deploying a web app, but rather the more general problem of deploying/maintaining Apps/Configs for a set of servers, or an entire company's workstations. They are aimed more at the system administrator than the web developer, though either can find them useful.
Cfengine is a tool in this category.
Puppet aims to improve on Cfengine. It's got a learning curve but many find it worth the time to figure out how to do the configs. Once you've got it going, each box checks the central server periodically and makes sure everything is up to date. If someone edits a file or changes a permission, this is detected and corrected. So, unlike the deployment tools above, Puppet not only puts files in the right place for you, it ensures they stay that way.
Chef is a little younger than Puppet with a similar approach.
Smartfrog is another tool in this category.
Ansible works with plain YAML files and does not require agents running on the servers it manages
For a comparison of these and many more tools in this category, see the Wikipedia article, Comparison of open source configuration management software.
Take a look at the cfengine tutorial to see if cfengine looks like the right tool for your situation. It may be a little too complicated for a small website, but if it is going to involve more computers and more configuration in the future, at some point you will end up using cfengine or something like that.
Create your own packages in the format your distribution uses, e.g. Debian packages (.deb). These can either be copied to each machine and installed manually, or you can set up your own repository, and add it to your list of sources.
Your packages should be set up so that the scripts they contain consult a configuration file, which is different on each host, depending on what scripts need to be run on each.
To tie it all together, you can create a meta package that just depends on each of the other packages you create. That way, when you set up a new server, you install that one meta package, and the other packages are brought in as dependencies.
Although this process sounds a bit complicated, if you have many scripts and many hosts to deploy them to, it can really pay off in the long run.
I have to roll out PHP scripts and Apache configurations to several customers on a frequent basis. Since they all run Debian Linux, I've set up a Debian package repository on my server and the all the customer has to do is type apt-get upgrade and they get the latest version.
The first thing to do is get all these scripts into a source control repository (svn or git are good) so that you can track changes to these scripts over time.
If you are interested in ruby, check out Capistrano, it is well suited deploying things to multiple machines in a cluster, and is fairly easy to set up. It can read files directly from your version control system.
Puppet is another tool that can be used in this situation. It is similar to cfengine - you create a model of the desired deployment and Puppet figures how to get the environment to this state.