Bug#787298: (no subject)
Zitat von Martin Zobel-Helas <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
On Sun May 31, 2015 at 09:52:08 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
I think that I won't agree that vagrant default box should include those
Simple explanations are:
1. it will take us further from standard Debian img
2. Ansible is not the only config mgmt soft which is used and to include at
least the most popular will bloat base box very significantly
salt, cfengine and more)
So, I'd say keeping those away from base image and allowing users to install
them in their own images is better idea then enforcing one over others or
installing all and having bloated base box.
when you do "vagrant up", some sort of provisioning will happen,
wheather you do that with shell or any config management tool.
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
Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.
IMHO both views are justified, which makes this a bit difficult to resolve.
I thick we all agree with Marcin:
There are quite a lot of provisioners, i.e. Ansible, CFEngine, Chef,
Puppet, Salt and Shell to only name those that are officially
supported by vagrant.
==> Including all those provisioners in a single box doesn't really
make sense. It makes the images unnecessarily large and most people /
organizations only use one of them.
==> I like the way puppetlabs resolve this: They have several boxes
with with one CF software each (plus one without any cf-mgmt tool at
Once we have a fully automated build environment ready, that should be
possible (provided the provisioners are DFSG compliant).
Sidenote related to the thread from the other day: I also like the way
they set up the box name and description:
puppetlabs/debian-7.8-64-nocm Debian 7.8 (wheezy) 64-bit
(amd64/x86_64), no configuration management software
puppetlabs/debian-7.8-64-puppet Debian 7.8 (wheezy) 64-bit
(amd64/x86_64), Puppet 3.7.4
The other point is that including (either) provisioner takes us
further from the standard Debian image.
That is correct and IMHO the user shouldn't assume that any kind of
provisioner is available out of the box.
If we only provide a bare basebox, the least we could do to help our
users is provide info on how to install the config management tool of
Would including a short note in motd be appropriate?