On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Ken Dreyer <ktdre...@ktdreyer.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to at least keep logic for EPEL 6 (and higher eventually). >> Puppet 2.6 which is in EPEL currently goes dead upstream at the end of >> April, so we'll have to do something there. I'm still weighing >> options for EPEL in general. > > (adding epel-devel-list to the CC) > > If it's the case that Puppet 2.6 goes EOL in April, my vote would be > to get Puppet 2.7 (or newer) into epel-testing sooner than later, so > users have plenty of lead time to test this out.
After the current security release of 2.6.18[1] is pushed to stable, I'll start working on the path forward for EPEL and leave it in testing for a bit. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-0664/puppet-2.6.18-1.el5 [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-0657/puppet-2.6.18-1.el6 > > - Ken > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > epel-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
