Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Version 2.0 of this cookbook is very broken #14

Open
zarry opened this issue May 27, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Version 2.0 of this cookbook is very broken #14

zarry opened this issue May 27, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@zarry
Copy link
Contributor

zarry commented May 27, 2015

Hey, probably something you already know but version 2.0 of this cookbook is pretty broken.

I managed to get the ubuntu package install working but that was after a significant amount of massaging. I am open to cleaning some of that stuff up and getting a PR in but I don't want to step on your toes if you are working on the same branch as well.

In addition I would also like to make sure there will be a decent level of activity should I start submitting PR so they don't sit waiting for awhile. I would love to get a stable version 2 of this cookbook out there.

Some issues I ran into...

  • jmxtrans now uses JAVA to determine where to access java which the default is JAVA_HOME/bin/java which creates issues as we export JAVA_HOME by default to /usr/bin/java. The java path jmxtrans attempts to use is /usr/bin/java/bin/java
  • JAR_FILE was exported to the wrong location for package installs. Looks like it was still the default for non package installs. This should update dynamically based on recipe used.
  • Package Install should set install prefix to /usr/share
  • Can't seem to get any log information generated. It creates the log file but no log messages(NOT RESOLVED)
@bijugs
Copy link
Member

bijugs commented Mar 10, 2016

@zarry . Thanks for the feedback on ver 2.0. There was still working going on the packaging front of JMXTrans when v2.0 was in progress. The installation using the cookbook was fine at the point in time. Will revisit again to see what is broken.

@zarry
Copy link
Contributor Author

zarry commented Mar 10, 2016

Thanks @bijugs! Version 1.x is meeting my needs for now with very light usage but I would be willing to test out 2.0 should the time come!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants