I'm looking at simplifying the initial developer setup at my company by using Vagrant. On the surface, it seems pretty nice: I write a Vagrantfile once and commit it, and then new developers just install VirtualBox and Vagrant, git clone our project's source code, and type vagrant up, and they have a running web app, with all the dependencies handled automatically.
The one piece that I'm not sure about is the repl. It's common to run the command to start a shell with the web server's environment, for experimentation or testing or debugging or whatever. (I mean something like rails console. I'm sure every web framework has something similar.)
How do Vagrant users typically do this? Do you just keep a vagrant ssh window open, and run your repl in there? It seems awkward to have to use (potentially) a different window (and operating system) for just this one thing. But in order to run it natively, I'd need to install the whole development environment natively, which defeats the purpose of Vagrant in the first place.
Am I overthinking this? Is there some other practice that people typically use for this?
I think you are overthinking this a bit -- most modern deveopment requires an open command prompt or three, having it be SSH'd into a different box isn't really much different than running it locally in many cases.
Another angle for some things -- like code and scaffolding generation -- is to run those on the local box. Since there is that shared folder it will land on the server and you don't need to switch environments.
I'm getting started with Vagrant and spent some time installing packages, setting up my DB and adding some data to the DB. Now that I have a base working box for my development environment, I would like to share this image with colleagues, that they can use as local VMs.
Is this not possible with vagrant? I just tried vagrant package and then destroyed it and did a vagrant up with my config.vm.box_url pointed to that packaged box location. To my dismay none of my installed packages, or files and configurations were included with my packaged vm.
Am I misunderstanding what vagrant is for or perhaps expecting vagrant to do something it's not designed to do here? If installed packages aren't the purpose of vagrant package, then what use cases is it for?
I've read through the docs and not found answers to these questions there.
Of course I can provision everything, and I'll get there too, but it's not what I'm getting at in this question.
I've since come to the conclusion that vagrant is basically for provisioning. If I need this I can just use virtual-box, but provisioning is a better approach because system packages and application dependencies etc. are a moving target.
Using provisioning allows future provisions to stay up to date and potentially expose incompatibilities.
So I want to start using yeoman (Gruntjs/requirejs/bower), but I was wondering if this could be done from inside your vm or would it be better for my workflow to have it installed on my host machine (OSX)? As far as I know you need to have a couple dependancies like node.js.
Is this a subjective thing or is there a guideline?
As #matt-cooper said, it's a subjective thing.
Personally, I run it on my host because that's where git and my IDE live and I consider Yeoman etc to be development tools that belong outside the backend code, whereas inside my VM I expect it to reflect my deployment server which doesn't need to meet the same requirements as Yeoman.
This is purely a subjective thing... you can do either.
If you are only ever going to use one VM then you could install grunt etc on the VM or the host and use it, it would mean that you would have to ssh into the VM each time you wanted to run grunt commands though.
If however you are going to have more than one VM setup then you might be better to have grunt etc. installed on your host machine rather than having to maintain multiple versions.
Here is my situation. I am on a Mac using Brew as my package manager. I had mono installed on my machine and I was doing all sorts of development in C#. I was doing web development, gui development, ect. When I tried to update my machine using Brew, I got an error. Uninstalling Mono solved the issue.
So, what I did is I toyed around and I created a 2nd user on my machine. Now, this user doesn't need anything to work. I just need Mono and Mono Develop to work on this user without installing anything globally. Everything needs to be installed locally.
So to be specific, I am the only on who uses my machine. My /Users directory looks like this.
/Users/dillon
/Users/dummy
So if I could install mono, in let's say:
/Users/dummy/.mono
Then in my .profile:
export MONO_PATH=/Users/dummy/.mono
Obviously this isn't a perfect world but I was wondering if anyone is an expert on this subject?
(Also, I use this dummy user for other stuff, I use it for Wine and I have a collection of software from school on this user.)
You need to build Mono from source to install it into a custom location (in which case you can install it anywhere you like).
You can install MonoDevelop.app anywhere, but getting it to use your custom Mono is a bit trickier. You might be able to make it work by mucking around with the relevant environment variables though.
How to install Mono in a custom location and the relevant environment variables is all covered here: http://mono-project.com/Parallel_Mono_Environments
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Every time a new developer joins the team or the computer a developer is using changes, the developer needs to do lots of work to setup the local development environment to make the current project work. As a SCRUM team we are trying to automate everything including deployment and tests so what I am asking is: is there a tool or a practice to make local development environment setup automated?
For example to setup my environment, first I had to install eclipse, then SVN, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, PHP. After that I populated the DB and I had to do minor changes in the various configuration files etc... Is there a way to reduce this labor to one-click?
There are several options, and sometimes a combination of these is useful:
automated installation
disk imaging
virtualization
source code control
Details on the various options:
Automated Installation Tools for automating installation and configuration of a workstation's various services, tools and config files:
Puppet has a learning curve but is powerful. You define classes of machines (development box, web server, etc.) and it then does what is necessary to install, configure, and keep the box in the proper state. You asked for one-click, but Puppet by default is zero-click, as it checks your machine periodically to make sure it is still configured as desired. It will detect when a file or mode has been changed, and fix the problem. I currently use this to maintain a handful of RedHat Linux boxes, though it's capable of handling thousands. (Does not support Windows as of 2009-05-08).
Cfengine is another one. I've seen this used successfully at a shop with 70 engineers using RedHat Linux. Its limitations were part of the reason for Puppet.
SmartFrog is another tool for configuring hosts. It does support Windows.
Shell scripts. RightScale has examples of how to configure an Amazon EC2 image using shell scripts.
Install packages. On a Unix box it's possible to do this entirely with packages, and on Windows msi may be an option. For example, RubyWorks provides you with a full Ruby on Rails stack, all by installing one package that in turn installs other packages via dependencies.
Disk Images Then of course there are also disk imaging tools for storing an image of a configured host such that it can be restored to another host. As with virtualization, this is especially nice for test boxes, since it's easy to restore things to a clean slate. Keeping things continuously up-to-date is still an issue--is it worth making new images just to propagate a configuration file change?
Virtualization is another option, for example making copies of a Xen, VirtualPC, or VMWare image to create new hosts. This is especially useful with test boxes, as no matter what mess a test creates, you can easily restore to a clean, known state. As with disk imaging tools, keeping hosts up-to-date requires more manual steps and vigilance than if an automated install/config tool is used.
Source Code Control Once you've got the necessary tools installed/configured, then doing builds should be a matter of checking out what's needed from a source code repository and building it.
Currently I use a combination of the above to automate the process as follows:
Start with a barebones OS install on a VMWare guest
Run a shell script to install Puppet and retrieve its configs from source code control
Puppet to install tools/components/configs
Check out files from source code control to build and deploy our web application
I stumbled across this question and was very suprised that no one has mentioned Vagrant yet.
As Pete TerMaat and others have mentioned, virtualization is a great way to manage and automate development environments. Vagrant basically takes the pain away from setting up these virtual boxes.
Within minutes you can have a completely fresh copy of your favourite Linux distro up and running, and provisioned exactly the same way your production server is.
No more fighting with OSX or Windows to get PHP, MySQL, etc. installed. All software lives and runs inside the virtual machine. You can even SSH in with vagrant ssh. If you make a mistake or break something, just vagrant destroy it, and vagrant up to start over fresh.
Vagrant automatically creates a synced folder to your local file system, meaning you don't need to develop within the virtual machine (ie. using Vim). Use whatever your editor of choice is.
I now create a new "Vagrant box" for almost every project I do. All my settings are saved into the project repository, so it's easy to bring on another team member. They simply have to pull the repo, and run vagrant up, and they are literally ready to go.
This also makes it much easier to handle projects that have different software requirements. Maybe you have some projects that rely on PHP 5.3, but some newer ones that run PHP 5.4. Just install the version you want for that project.
Check it out!
One important point is to set up your projects in source control such that you can immediately build, deploy and run after checkout.
That means you should also checkin helper infrastructure, such as Makefiles, ant buildfiles etc., and settings for the tools, such as IDE project files.
That should take care of the setup hassle for individual projects.
For the basic machine setup, you could use a standard image. Another option is to use your platform's tools to automate installation. Under Linux, you could create a meta-package that depends on all the packages you need. Under Windows, a similar thing should be possible using MSI or the like.
Edit:
Ideally, instead of checking in helper infrastructure, you check in the information that allows the build to generate the helper infrastructure. This is the approach taken by e.g. the GNU build system (autotools etc.), or by Maven. This is even more elegant, because you can (theoretically) generate infrastructure for any (supported) build environment, thus you are not bound to e.g. one specific IDE, and settings in the helper infrastructure (paths etc.) don't need to duplicate the main project settings.
However, this also a more complex approach, so if you can't get it to work, I believe checking in stuff like IDE files directly is acceptable.
I like to use Virtual PC or VMware to virtualize the development environment. This provides a standard "dev environment" that could be shared among developers. You don't have to worry about software that the user could add to their system that may conflict with your development environment. It also provides me a way to work to two projects where the development environments can't both be on one system (using two different versions of a core technology).
Use puppet to configure both your development and production environment. Using a top-notch automation system is the only way to scale your ops.
There's always the option of using virtual machines (see e.g. VMWare Player). Create one environment and copy it over for each new employee with minimal configuration needed.
At a prior place we had everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in SCM (clearcase then SVN). When a new developer can in they installed ClearCase|SVN and sucked down the repository. This also handles the case when you need to update a particular lib/tool as you can just have the dev teams update their environment.
We used two repo's for this so code and tools/config lived in separate places.
I highly recommend Blueprint from DevStructure. It's open-source and your use case is actually the exact reason we originally wrote the software. Our goals have somewhat changed, but it still is the perfect tool for what you are describing. In short, you can create reusable server configs - dead simple configuration management. I hope this helps!
https://github.com/devstructure/blueprint (Blueprint # Github)
I've been thinking about this myself. There are some other technologies that you could throw into the mix. Here's what I'm currently setting up:
PXE based pre-seeded installation images (Debian Squeeze). You can start up a bare-metal machine (or new virtual appliance) and select the image from the PXE boot menu. This has the major advantage of being able to install your environment on physical machines (in addition to virtual appliances).
Someone already mentioned Puppet. I use CFEngine but it's a similar deal. Essentially your configuration is documented and centralized in policy files which are continually enforced by an agent on the client.
if you don't want a rigid environment (i.e. developers may choose a combination of tool-sets) you can roll your own deb packages so new devs can type sudo apt-get install acmecorp-eclipse-env or sudo apt-get install acmecorp-intellij-env, for example.
Slightly off-topic, but if you run a Debian based environment (i.e. Ubuntu), consider installing apt-cacher (package proxy). In addition to saving bandwidth, it will make your installations much faster (since packages are cached on your local network).
If you're using OSX and working with Rails. I'd suggest either:
https://github.com/platform45/let-there-be-light
https://github.com/thoughtbot/laptop
If you use machines in a standard configuration, you can image the disk with a fresh perfectly configured install -- that's a very popular approach in many corporations (and not just for developers, either). If you need separately configured OS's, you can tar-bz2 all the added and changed files once a configured OS is turned into your desired setup, and just untar it as root to make your desired environment from scratch.
if you're using a linux flavor, you've probably got a package management system: thinks .rpm for fedora/redhat, or .deb for ubuntu/debian. many of the things you describe already have packages available: svn, eclipse, etc. you could roll your own packages for company specific software, create a repository (perhaps only available on the local network) and then your setup could be reduced to a single bash script which would add the company repo to /etc/apt/sources.list (debian/ubuntu) and then call a command like,
/home/newhire$ apt-get update && apt-get install some complete package list
you could use buildbot to then automate regular builds for company packages that change often.
Try out DevScript at http://nsnihalsahu.github.io/devscript .
Its one command like ,
devscript lamp or devscript laravel or devscript django . In around a few minutes ,depending on the speed of your internet co