Linux

47958 readers

1479 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The overlap between package managers and automation frameworks (lemy.lol)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What do package managers do? Install packages, obviously! But that is not everything. In my opinion, package managers do enough to be characterized as general automation frameworks. For example:

manage configurations and configuration files
manage custom compilation options and flags
provide isolation or containerization
make sure a specific file is present in a specific place given specific conditions
change installation files or configuration based on architecture or other conditions

Not all package managers do all of the above, but you get the idea.

Nix even manages your entire setup with a single configuration file.

It occurred to me that package management could theoretically be managed by an automation framework.

What do I mean by automation framework? Ansible, chef, puppet, or Sparrow.

Now imagine if you were to use one of those package managers as an automation framework. For most of them, it would suck. (nix is a notable exception). So maybe common package managers are just bad automation frameworks?

What if we used an automation framework as a package manager? Well currently, it might also suck, but only because it lacks the package definitions. Maybe it is not a bad experiment to have a distribution managed by a modern automation framework like Sparrow.

What are the benefits?

usable on other distributions
more easily create your own packages on the fly
Greater customization and configurability
use a known programming language that is easy to read to define packages and other functions, instead of a DSL
your package manager can easily automate just about any task using the same syntax and framework

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why has it caused you regret?

Any configuration coded in, for example, Python 3.12, will cease to be useful in October of 2028, when it will become quite difficult to find an active useable Python 3.12 runtime.

https://endoflife.date/python

Whereas the same configuration, in an Ansible Playbook, will likely continue to function just fine, under the latest Anbile and Python versions.

I've experienced this rodeo enough times that I trust Domain Specific meta-languages much more than direct program code, for configuration.

On the XKCD, yeah. It's a joke. Randal Munroe isn't actually advocating to stop trying to fix our standards.

I refer to it here as a reminder that there will always be fatigue with each new RFC, and that's okay.

Also, not every RFC will turn out as timeless and eternally useful as RFC 2324 And there's no excuse for my bringing it up here, except that I like it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What about using standard shell or bash? I know they are not easy to use correctly, but at least they won't break every few years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Great question!

Bash (on vanilla Linux) lacks functionality to verify each change after making it.

(Edit: For configuration drift detection, which I need in various contexts.)

Yes, I can verify each change I make, but it's a huge pain in the ass in Bash. And in my experience, there's a 100% chance the next person to update the config won't understand that they need to update the matching verify step.

In contrast, in Ansible, every step has "modify" and "verify" modes built-in. If I change the "modify" step, the next "verify" run will be correct, automatically, because one config line defines both.

The closest thing in any shell, that I am aware of is "Desired State Config", which currently only supports PowerShell. It currently leaves a lot to be desired. Configs in v1 and v2 are live code, which causes problems. But version 3 (currently in alpha) of Desired State Config looks quite promising (and is already designed to be an extension of Ansible and other orchestration engines.)

DSC, if it becomes an RFC, could become the best of both worlds. I dream of doing DSC in my preferred shell, to get started, then dumping those configs on a full scale orchestration pull-server, when I need it.

Edit: So many typos.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not sure I really understand the issue here. Is it about installing or modifying parts of existing config files? I try to use config.d facilities as much as possible for this problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

"Configuration drift" is when someone (often myself, in a moment of inattention) manually changes things from how I want them.

I need to keep drift to a minimum, because I often build machines that are extremely similar to the previous build - and I won't remember the manual change next time, unless I detect the drift and correct it in my configuration management solution.