Yuvi Panda <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would only do that if Johannes has a (longer-term) inter- >> est in that:
> Assuming: > # We follow up and uninstall it if it isn't used > # No others start using it in the meantime just because it is available > Usually people don't know / find out if a package is installed in a > 'supported' way and just use it and get sad if it breaks, and it's > just easier to stick to 'all package installs through puppet'. Is ok > to do manually and just file a bug and/or make a puppet patch so we > don't forget - mail threads get lost, manual installs get forgotten... If someone gets sad, I would comfort them with the knowledge that I didn't file bugs or prepare patches because my time is as limited as theirs, but I (or anyone else) would fix that situation /then/ in a jiffy. But if I'd have to fear that me trying to help Johannes to test something is held against me by other users who just blindly assumed that they can rely on arbitrary packages be- ing installed, I probably wouldn't try to help anyone at all. And I would be quite surprised because we don't list all packages that are installed on the hosts in the various Puppet manifests, but only those that users actively re- quested, even if that means that some (other) users might get sad. Tim _______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
