Issue #2247 has been updated by Nigel Kersten.
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > Nigel, > > Your status change seems spurious. Puppet already has options that are > applicable only to single backend handlers in several places, so mentioning > `apt-get -t` and using that as an apparent excuse for changing the status > away from **Accepted** seems a little disingenuous. Not only that, but doing > it when there's a working, if slightly nasty, patch that's been soundly > ignored to do this attached to the ticket just makes you seem plain rude. I'm sorry if that's how it came across, but moving it away from Accepted doesn't mean I'm rejecting it. The move to "Needs More Information" indicated that I didn't think we had enough information scoped out to hand this to a developer, not that I'm rejecting it. I did so at the same time as I asked a question about other package types, which I thought made it clear I was looking for more information to scope the work. If it was being rejected, the status would have moved to Rejected. > Quite frankly, I and other people will continue to need this feature out of > puppet, because we don't want yum to pull in half the world by magic in > normal sysadmin operation. I guess that this means that those of us who want > this feature will continue to need to patch puppet to make it do the right > thing and work for us because things are being "shoe-horned into the package > type". > > For the record, too, the fact that you've totally ignored the patch (I don't > mind it being rejected, I do mind it being ignored - it's common courtesy to > say "thanks but no thanks" if you don't want it, and explain why you don't > like it) in this case is likely to make me just maintain my own patches in > future without bothering to share them back ever. You may consider this a > good thing - I think that's the death of an "Open Source" project. The patches aren't suitable to be merged yet. They're lacking tests, and it wasn't clear we had consensus on an appropriate cross-platform parameter name, and as my question showed, I wasn't sure whether there was an equivalent option across a large subset of our providers. ---------------------------------------- Feature #2247: enablerepo and disablerepo for yum type https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2247 Author: Ben - Status: Needs More Information Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: package Target version: Affected Puppet version: 0.24.8 Keywords: yum Branch: it would be nice to be able to enable a disabled repo for the installation on one package. for example installing facter from EPEL. something like; <pre> package { "facter": ensure => installed, enablerepo => [ "epel", "epel-testing" ]; } </pre> -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
