On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Marcin Kulisz <deb...@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 >
