[users] [Fwd: RPMforge/Repoforge and Puppet]

Ian Young ian at iay.org.uk
Wed Nov 21 19:21:16 CET 2012


On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:20, "Yury V. Zaytsev" <yury at shurup.com> wrote:

> I see, so the major point is that PuppetLabs are offering 3.x already,
> which to me looks like quite a big leap. Personally, I'd like to stick
> to 2.7.x on my infrastructure for awhile, now that I have extremely
> limited time for maintenance available…

I've only recently started with puppet, so I might flip the other way at least on the master.  The bug I was concerned with is on the client side anyway, though, so having that fixed in the repoforge version would definitely be valuable.

>> How any of this might play into Repoforge's packaging guidelines I have no idea.
> 
> Having that said, I think it makes sense for us to provide 2.7.x for
> quite some time.

That makes sense to me.

It's particularly true for CentOS 5, I think, because of the requirement to replace a core package (ruby) with a newer version to support puppet 3.x.

It might be more arguable for CentOS 6, where I believe the system version of ruby is more recent, but figuring that out sounds like it would be a lot more work.

> Steve has just merged Tom's pull request in, so now
> it's up to Dag to build it and it will become available at some point.

Although I can't see the merge on github, I'm sure I am just not looking in the right place.  Presumably it's happening in a git repository fork somewhere.

Some days are just too educational...

	-- Ian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4813 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121121/98a39d4d/attachment-0002.p7s>


More information about the users mailing list