On 3 October 2012 15:51, Chad Huneycutt <chad.huneyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that folks should manage their repos, but I wanted to throw in > a couple of thoughts: > > * The package name hacks (eg puppet3) are usually done by > distributions to allow multiple versions of software to co-exist. > I think that we have the requirements for the package name hack, as in 2 separate package versions > > * Take a look at the yum versionlock plugin. My life has been much > simpler since I deployed it. For a while I was "exclude"ing puppet > and friends in yum.conf, but that was a real pain. The versionlock > plugin "pins" a package at the version you want, and then you can > update when ready. > I will take a look at this plugin when I have a moment, thanks for the tip > > - Chad > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:36:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Stanhke wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jeff McCune <je...@puppetlabs.com> > wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Robert Rothenberg <rob...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> I am using CentOS 6 with the PuppetLabs yum repo from > >> >> http://yum.puppetlabs.com > >> >> > >> >> I noticed that today version 3 is available on the repo, so of > course, > >> >> an > >> >> upgrade to Puppet is available. > >> > > >> > Yes, this major version update went live on Monday. There are a > >> > number of breaking-changes between 2.7 and 3.0 which are described at: > >> > http://links.puppetlabs.com/telly_breaking_changes > >> > > >> >> Ideally, it would have been better if v3 had a different distribution > >> >> name, > >> >> so that systems with v2.7.x are not upgraded (especially if there > will > >> >> be > >> >> future releases if v2.7). > >> > >> We sent out several notices about this prior to doing it. The Puppet > >> Labs repositories are designed to be the place you get the latest > >> software from Puppet Labs. This was a conscious choice. > >> > >> > > >> > Could you please file an issue (with impact data) about the > >> > distribution name issue. I believe we considered doing what you > >> > describe, but decided against it. I don't know the reasons off the > >> > top of my head though, an issue will give us a clear place to track > >> > the request, the impact it has on you and your organization, and the > >> > decision we come to (or have already come to). > >> > > >> >> I am concerned about things breaking. So is there a document > detailing > >> >> incompatibilities? Will there be future 2.7 releases? > >> There will be. I'd imagine you'll see activity slow on it though. > >> > >> > > >> > There will be future releases of 2.7. We will continue to fix bugs in > >> > the 2.7 series, but we are intending to avoid adding any new features > >> > or make any large changes to the behavior of Puppet 2.7. > > > > > > I am not directly affected by this issue, but I agree with those > complaining > > that it was unwise, or at least inhospitable for PL to release Puppet 3 > into > > its repositories in this way, especially considering that PL intends to > > continue with maintenance releases in the 2.7 series. It is tantamount > to a > > recommendation for all users to upgrade to the new line immediately, and > > considering the number of breaking changes, I cannot believe that that > was > > intended. > > > > The customary way to handle dual lines of packages is to give one line a > > different name, for example "puppet3-*" instead of plain "puppet-*". > > Failing that, it is essential that the package name for the 2.7 series be > > changed, else the PL repository will be near-useless to people who want > to > > stay at 2.7 for the time being. If that's the plan then the first > > "puppet2-*" packages should have been released at the same time that the > > mainline packages were updated to v 3.0. > > > > Alternatively, PL could set up a separate repository for the Puppet 2 > > maintenance releases. > > > > Distinguishing the lines only by their version numbers simply isn't > useful, > > and dropping v3 packages with their breaking changes into the same > > repository with v2 will cause breakage for users. PL, I urge you to > > reconsider. Soon. > > > > > > John > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Puppet Users" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/AG4SVCmBV1cJ. > > > > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > > > -- > Chad M. Huneycutt > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
