Full installation management via packages.config file

[gregsdennis]

Currently, the manifest file is merely a list of packages for chocolatey to install. However, it could be used to fully control what is installed on a machine.

For instance, suppose I have a bunch of machines with packages A1.0, B2.2, and C3.0. I would like to batch alter my machines by:

• Upgrading A to 1.2,
• Uninstalling B completely because I don't need it anymore, and
• Rolling C back to 2.8

Right now, my only option for the uninstall would be a custom script, but the upgrade and (I believe) rollback can be handled by choco.

I would like to send just a manifest file that instructs choco to perform all three of these actions.

I like the manifest file format, so I don't think that should be modified. (Especially since it's basically Nuget's packages.config.)

Instead of modifying the manifest, the feature could be as simple as adding an install switch like -image or -full that works with manifest files to indicate that the manifest contains the desired state of all packages installed on the machine. Choco would then uninstall any packages not listed.

packages.config:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<packages>
  <package id="a" version="1.2.0"/>
  <package id="c" version="2.8.0"/>
</packages>

command line:

choco install "packages.config" -image

[gregsdennis]

Of course, an uninstall of an unlisted package would only occur if there are no dependent packages listed.

[ferventcoder]

I'm not completely sure about this - I don't want a call to install to automatically go about uninstalling things. There are tools that already provide functionality like this, called configuration managers - like Puppet/Chef. In Puppet it is called purge.

[ferventcoder]

Will need to think on this for awhile.

[gregsdennis]

The tools out there don't do what we need. We have a unique tiered deployment strategy that nothing seems to support fully. With choco we can control that via the manifest files, sending each tier what is supposed to be installed. If necessary, I can write a shell app that merely calls choco, but integration into choco would be nice.

Secondarily, if you're hung up on the "install" command, it's fine to have a different command.

[gep13]

As soon as I read this issue, I immediately thought about Puppet and Chef.

Out of interest, why wouldn't something like Puppet, using the Chocolatey Provider, not fill all your requirements?

[gregsdennis]

Hadn't seen puppet before. Chef is more web deploy whereas we're deploying to many workstations. Puppet may work, but we'll need to research further.

Even so, I think this would be a nice feature.

[gregsdennis]

It looks like Puppet would be a good solution for distribution and configuration management, but we would still need choco for packaging and installation of our apps (we write them; we're not merely distributing 3rd party apps to our machines). This feature would greatly assist us.

[gep13]

@gregsdennis said...
This feature would greatly assist us.

I am not saying that it wouldn't be a great feature, but I am thinking about whether this should be a core focus of Chocolatey. NOTE: I am not saying that it won't be, just playing devil's advocate.

If you look at something like Puppet, using the Chocolatey Provider, as shown in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNM2H4GsWYA

Puppet already has a mechanism to say that ensure this package is installed, etc. So I am wondering whether we leave Chocolatey to do it's thing, i.e. provide the mechanism to install, upgrade and uninstall applications, and then use CM tools like Puppet to specify that this is "what" applications should be installed.

Thoughts?

[gregsdennis]

@gep13, I see what you're saying. Looking into puppet (reading & watching videos) I'm not sure that Puppet (or any other available system that I can find) provides the specific feature set that we need for our organization, processes, and architecture. We're most likely going to have to roll our own management system. If we need to orchestrate choco as part of that, we're capable. I'd just prefer it to be built in.

@ferventcoder, I'd like to get your thoughts on our specific design; maybe puppet can do what we need. However, I'd prefer not to discuss it publicly.

[ferventcoder]

@gregsdennis Sure - you can shoot me an email - my github username at gmail will do.

[gregsdennis]

I was pondering this feature a bit more and it seems that choco would be in a better position to manage this kind of feature than an external app because choco has access to the package dependency graph.

If an external app is attempting to do this, I'd have to duplicate the dependencies in that app (be it puppet or something home-grown). If the external app didn't have this information, it would be forced to simply go down the list in the manifest, which may not be ordered properly. If it tries to command choco to uninstall a package that is a dependency for another, the uninstall will fail. This will likely result in a bad state on the machine.

But if choco has this feature, then it can look at the dependency graph, see what needs to be (un)installed, and determine the correct sequence to bring the machine into the desired state.

[ferventcoder]

That's a fair assessment.

[gregsdennis]

I don't want a call to install to automatically go about uninstalling things - @ferventcoder

Does this mean that Chocolatey doesn't behave like Nuget when it comes to dependencies? For example, in Nuget if I have A which depends on B, and I upgrade A to a version that no longer needs B, then B will also uninstall (silently) if I have no other packages that need it.