I feel like I’m missing something obvious here…
We’re using Octopus to deploy Web Apps and Windows Services, and everything is fine.
However, we’ve also got a task to move a nuget package to a nuget server. I can see the package in the Octopus library, and all I want to do is move it to a directory on the tentacle server.
Is there a script template that lets me choose a package, and determine its deployment location, without attempting to unpackage its contents?
Thanks for getting in touch! At the moment there is no feature in octopus that lets you simply move the package. We are however planning to add something like a move package step in Octopus 3.4 as we have noticed this is something that the community would like in Octopus.
In the meantime there is a sort of workaround that you can use that should get you the same results.
You are able to package the package you wish to move into another package then deploy it to the machine you with to have it moved to. It should extract the first package leaving the initial one there untouched.
If you have any questions about this please let us know.
Regarding your suggested work-around: I did try this approach, by
specifying file-includes (referencing our packages) in the nuspec of a
web-project. But OctoPack (and I think Nuget Pack) actively exclude nupkg
files. So renaming the extension is also necessary. And then, of course,
reverting the name on deployment - which all gets rather messy.
I look forward to 3.4 upgrade.
Using OctoPack your approach is correct. However if you used the octo.exe pack and pointed it to the directory where the NuGet file is, then you would not have to rename the extension.
We have a page on using Octo.exe if this is something you would like to look further into instead of waiting for 3.4
I just got a note about Octopus 3.4. Do you know if it includes a publish
to nuget option as we discussed previously?
Sorry for the bad news, but we were not able to fit it in to the 3.4 release due to the complexity of the already planned features. We will look at it being part of a patch release or worse case version 3.5.
Again sorry about that!