>> If you're going to bundle it, I'd rather us not fork it. Keep it in >> its own directory, and allow distros to rm -rf it, and add mini-tar >> as >> a dependency. >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries pretty >> much sums up my thoughts on bundled libraries in general. >> Mcollective >> is actually a decent example of bundling that is easily undone and >> works for package maintainers. >> > > +1, we discussed this in the past and everyone more or less decided > mco is wrong how its done but really, its best :)
Thats a really nice pattern. For those who haven't seen it, look at the effort required by distros to remove the vendored gem here: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-puppet/mcollective.git;a=blob;f=debian/repackage.sh;h=ba20b289dc2ea3224701db327507b58f433396b2;hb=HEAD#l24 > the thing I need to do better in mco is write a package maintainers > guide to make it clear to people how to undo the bundling as there's > been some mistakes made where people just werent aware we did it this > way but on the whole how mco does it worked out really well for us. > The guide should be in the top level or in the top level README or > something Have we explored this at all within Puppet? What is the preferred pattern in Puppet today, and do we see an advantage in adopting a similar pattern? ken. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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-dev?hl=en.
