vaultenv VS aptly

Having secrets in an external system (like Hashicorp Vault) and then using [vaultenv](https://github.com/channable/vaultenv) to inject these during `helm install/upgrade`. So you end up with something like `vaultenv ... -- helm install --set config.myvar=${VAULTENV_INJECTED_ENV_VALUE}` (or similar). Point is I use vaultenv to run helm with secrets injected as env vars only during the helm run, and use helm's `--set` flag to set individual secrets. This can get tedious if you have many secrets as you have to specify each of them individually with --set. Usually I wrap this in a Makefile or a shell script for easier invoking.

> Also, regarding DevOps, the tooling around Nix makes it a little brittle for anything event based--rapidly changing configurations on the fly due to network conditions (Consul, Ansible, etc). This is where configuration management is heading, and due to the static nature of Nix, delegating dynamic changes is hard/anti pattern.

Channable uses Consul, Vault, etc. for dynamic configuration and it works with Nix just fine.

You don't have to use static configuration files with Nix. Either fetch dynamic stuff using the Consul, Vault, etc. APIs at runtime or use a tool like vaultenv [1] or similar if you don't want this logic in your application code.

Put those tools in your systemd service before launching your app, and you're good to go.

(NB: I was DevOps teamlead at Channable while a part of this work was being done. Sad that I won't be able to see the final picture.)

[1]: https://github.com/channable/vaultenv

You should ask in the upstream bug tracker (is it this one? https://github.com/lubomir-brindza/nautilus-typeahead). First step is to get it to build for Debian manually/locally - i.e. patch the official nautilus Debian package. Then it's easy to setup a personal APT repository with aptly

Exactly what aptly is for. No idea about CentOS side, for that we just had rsync from official repo + some scripts

I'm not sure if this is an option, because it might break the isolation model, but you could setup repo mirrors in whatever tool of choice you like, but for Debian/Ubuntu, I think aptly is really featureful.

I know that it is not directly what you asked about, but without knowing how the signed debs are being used, I can say that if you were to use aptly to create an apt repo to house your debs to then be installed on whatever machines offline (assuming network connectivity, which may be an incorrect assumption), it requires you to sign a published repo/mirror, and also requires you to install and trust the key on any systems that you then want to use to install package unless you specifically use [trusted=yes] in the apt repo list file.

There's also Aptly but I've never used it. Looks neat, though.

I personally just mirror the packages for what ever I'm using with aptly and use the netinstall iso and point it to that local mirror. The netinstall iso will pull any needed updated from the repo.

Take a look at Aptly.

Aptly is a purpose-built DEB content management solution. Never used but I've heard good things.

The last time I got involved in repo/package management, we used aptly Later moved to Jfrog artifactory. The latter is very expensive.There is also pulp some said it is good, which I personally never managed in production environment, so I can't recommend for or against.