##osx-server

a daemon could monitor a set of override rules and ensure that they're correctly applied

yeah, true

Again, not helpful for Adobe adds crap to the authorization db

you could have your daemon ignore everything except the rules that you specify

so Adobe can do what they want, we only care about system.login.console

of course if they touch that the daemon would undo the changes

Sure. I think grahamgilbert is doing something along those lines using Munki.

don't suppose puppet has a module for authorizationdb?

Puppet _should_ have one, but if it does, it didn't come from PuppetLabs, and most likely came from dayglojesus

no, they have the old one hacked up between Jeff McCune and Nigel

by which I mean they have none

ah, yes, he did do that recently as well http://dayglojesus.github.io/managedmac/types/#...

there you go

Allister: It should be a source of great embarrassment to Nigel, Jeff, Gary, etc the state of Puppet's OS X support

But they are too busy rolling in money to care

maybe

Gary embarrassed?

sure he's familiar with the concept?

I'd think engineering is too busy converting everything to c++ to worry about a long-ingnored set of users

puppet's going C++?

yup

dayum

gone, server-side and facter

(called cfacter)

server is much faster than one version previous, I like

and Clojure, huh

that's been for a bit with their trapperkeeper whatchamacallit

everything moving JVM, too

_still_ haven't found a use for Puppet on OS X that made me get past the friction

Though dayglojesus's work looks impressive.

Tho this quote scares me: "Macauthdb returns the ability to manage the multitude of settings available in the OS X authdb. It does this by making changes to /var/db/authdb directly."

@dbconn = SQLite3::Database.new(AUTH_DB)

Yeeesh

so yeah

So wrong

He should be using security authorizationdb

A Puppet provider that had been using security authorizationdb from the beginning would still be working.

Or if he doesn't want to call that tool, he should be using the Apple API via C

yeah, the API is the way to go

guessing it's a no-go from Ruby though

Though I suspect that's hard from Ruby.

PyObjC can't do the Security framework either

So if Puppet is rewriting the client-side tools in C++ what does that mean for custom providers written in Ruby?

well security.framework is C and C++

i would think you could bridge that

gneagle: according to that article still supported

OK: TL;DR

:-)

Just skimmed it.

dirkg: can't bridge it in PyObjC at least, can't handle all the details

MagerValp using C types?

straight from Ronald

gneagle: one may believe this change will make it scripting language-agnostic

dirkg: Certainly _possible_, but I haven't seen a successful implementation yet.

you can probably ctypes your way around it, but it'd be a real pain

dirkg: Though I have seen partial implementations.

gneagle yeah that was what i was about to say next

tbh

can you remap the structs to use uintptr_t?

that could fake it enough to store the pointers if you can recast

And it's really tricky to mix-and-match stuff that's wrapped with ctypes with stuff that's wrapped with PyObjC

dirkg: Once it gets that tricky I tend to lose interest

basically python is the wrong tool for the job

yeah, that is pushing it

write something in objc or swift

the line that defines feasible

Huh. Surprised dayglojesus doesn't use security authorizationdb in there.

MagerValp this is also the line between a dev being told "we need this feature" and someone not doing this fulltime

howdy howdy

so I gave an the mavericks installer to a friend to update their aging 10.7.5 install

I make a DMG of the installer app to give them, and they copy this onto their desktop

and it runs and throws an error for not being on a writable disk

what gives, how can i work around this, the person in question is remote and not very technical

So copy the installer app to the local disk and run it

yeah they did

still gives that error

No they didn't

this is what i said

but having walked them through it twice they and running the app off their desktop, not the disk image

this is kindof what COSXIP was made for...

not that installing a package is necessarily easier than running a .app

Allister: Not really.

dirkg: no way to do remote assistance? Fire up an iChat/Messages session and share the desktop?

i wasn't really expecting this to get involved, but they are on a personal 2009 MBP, even with 8GB of ram i wouldn't trust it on yosemite with the graphics card it has

gneagle: Because I suspect user error as the most likely explanation still.

gneagle possibly but they aren't so technically impaired that they cannot follow the directions on moving it to the computer, my original email said install it to desktop, but they actually put in /applications first

yes, i do as well, but i'm not sure how this error can present if they have assured me it isn't running on the disk image

Put what in /Applications or on the desktop? The DMG?

the "Install OS X Mavericks.app"

i made sure they were moving that

that was on the dmg

Without more info you aren't going to make much progress.

enjoy the weekend all

yeah

I might have to remote desktop or something

gneagle: exciting. but the wait is killer.

dirkg: Which is what I suggested. iChat/Messages is good for adhoc screen sharing

is it worth it doing a repair disk permissions first?

always.

dirkg: no.

Wait for good things one must.

this is true.

gneagle: http://i.imgur.com/C6SOQww.gif

hi guys

herro

I liked this early leak: http://mirror.ninja/09cu

gneagle i'm arranging to do remote desktop/screen share, is there anything you would recommend if the assumed conditions are true?

I'm looking for a Homebrew alternative. What would you recommend for the packages that OS X doesn't have? I'm starting to think maybe just use Docker for anything that OS X doesn't have?

hydrajump macports :P

dirkg: Not without more data

mmm, then i hope they have time this week so i can do it when there are some people around here

gneagle: lol

dirkg: never used macports. Better than homebrew? Not happy about many things regarding brew.

it depends on what you are wanting

macports builds everything from scratch for you

whereas homebrew can distribute pre-compiled binaries i think

dirkg: both can

oh can they?

TIL

yeah, as long as you still have it available, you can't install a precompiled port without macports being on the system

I think macports and homebrew are the only major software package managers for OS X