On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:21:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 23.10.2012 17:21, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to
get rid of it, although puppet 4 might be 100% compatible with
That's not true. In the future, puppet can obsolete
On 10/23/2012 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
rid of it,
Of course you can. In fact we've done this more than once in Fedora.
There was a gtk+3 package parallel
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 09:13 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
rid of it,
Of course you can. In fact we've done this
Fedora Infrastructure has begun using ansible for some system setup
and other orchestration/automation tasks.
Our (just beginning) public repos of it are here:
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/
Just out of my curiosity, is Fedora Infra going to replace Puppet with
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by very loud
trumpets and fireworks beforehand, the
I'm sure that 2.6 won't last for the life of EL5, let alone EL6. At
the same time, I didn't push to get 2.7 in EPEL because it isn't a
completely compatible update. And 3.0 was coming so I figured we
could wait to see what things looked like when it did. The
alternative would have been
Dne 23.10.2012 09:55, Lukas Zapletal napsal(a):
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I vote for having puppet3 and not touching the default version. This
will be more challenging, but we all know a bit about puppet upgrades
and transitions - it can be big pain.
Lets have puppet-3.x and puppet2 for whoever wants to
Dne 23.10.2012 15:10, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I vote for having puppet3 and not touching the default version. This
will be more challenging, but we all know a bit about puppet upgrades
and transitions - it can be big pain.
Lets
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 23.10.2012 15:10, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Lets have puppet-3.x and puppet2 for whoever wants to use old version.
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just
Dne 23.10.2012 15:37, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just introduces
complication into the packaging.
Introducing new package is complication anyway, so what is the point?
See
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 23.10.2012 15:37, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just
introduces
complication into the packaging.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
Fedora Infrastructure has begun using ansible for some system setup
and other orchestration/automation tasks.
Our (just beginning) public repos of it are here:
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/
Just out of my curiosity,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Yes, I understand that ... therefore you need two versions of puppet
installed in parallel. There was proposal to prepare puppet3
package, while I think that the correct way is to move puppet to
version 3 and prepare new puppet2 or
I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others
(along with bin files/utils) will only the make the overall
user-experience of Puppet worse
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others
(along with bin
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
We can make the new package available, and do something to publicize that
there is going to be a change. When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for
security updates, the new package gets the old name and obsoletes the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
package be
From: Greg Swift xa...@fedoraproject.org
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: 10/23/2012 15:51
Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL
Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
rid of it,
Of course you can. In fact we've done this more than once in Fedora.
There was a gtk+3 package parallel installable with with 'gtk+' (which
was a 2.x
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is not
100% compatible with 1.9.3. The
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust janfr...@tanso.net wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com
wrote:
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships
Dne 23.10.2012 17:21, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to
get rid of it, although puppet 4 might be 100% compatible with
That's not true. In the future, puppet can obsolete puppet3 -- for example,
in EPEL 7.
Yes, it can, but I doubt
From: Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This
is
a problem when you have a
From: Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: epel-devel-l...@redhat.com
Date: 10/19/2012 19:35
Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL
Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt infrastructure.
Could you explain what you mean by clientless, please? It seems to
me that there always needs to be something running at the client
handling
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt infrastructure.
Could you explain what you mean by clientless, please? It seems to
me that there always
From: Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal
skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
infrastructure.
Could you explain what you mean by
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
ansibile is exactly what I've been looking at as a puppet replacement.
If anyone has experience with both, I'd greatly appreciate hearing of
their experiences. I don't relish the idea of making the conversion,
but I really do get the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
From: Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't
From: Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
From: Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
went in as puppet3 or something, and left the stable version as is,
happily getting security-only updates.
My biggest concern is that 2.6
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:25:22PM -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
went in as puppet3 or something, and left the stable version as is,
happily getting security-only updates.
My biggest concern is that 2.6 will not get
Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
went in as puppet3 or something, and left the stable version as is,
happily getting security-only updates.
My biggest
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Todd Zullinger t...@pobox.com wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
went in as puppet3 or something, and left the
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:29:57 -0700
Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM,
Seth Vidalskvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm less worried about the people requesting the newness b/c they
clearly want change. I'm worried about the people who run rhel
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is not
100% compatible with 1.9.3. The number of issues in this space
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to
support the widest variety of host populations we can.
This request was brought to us by community members,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to
support the widest variety of
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
a problem when you have a distributed application
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by very loud
trumpets and fireworks beforehand, the
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:31:57PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
infrastructure.
I do not want to be hogtied like this again.
Yeah, but we're not going to make _you_ use Puppet. :)
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:31:57PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
infrastructure.
I do not want to be hogtied like this again.
Yeah, but we're not going to make _you_ use Puppet. :)
Damned
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
My proposal would be the following:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
* Move EPEL 5 to the latest 2.7.x branch. This is the last branch of
Puppet that supports Ruby 1.8.5, and works with 3.0 masters.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
My proposal would be the following:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
* Move EPEL 5 to the latest 2.7.x branch. This is the last branch of
Puppet that supports
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke stah...@puppetlabs.com
wrote:
My proposal would be the following:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora = 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
* Move
48 matches
Mail list logo
