On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:25:22PM -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: > > I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it > > went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version as is, > > happily getting security-only updates. > My biggest concern is that 2.6 will not get security updates for the > lifetime of EPEL 5 and 6. To me it seems better to bite the bullet
As I understand it, Puppet Labs is still providing security updates for the 2.6 series. > This is the main problem I see with parallel-installable packages, > particularly in EPEL - it seems to give users an assumption that the > old packages are fine. We should cross that bridge when the old packages aren't fine anymore. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mat...@fedoraproject.org> _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
