On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:20, "Yury V. Zaytsev" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see, so the major point is that PuppetLabs are offering 3.x already,
> which to me looks like quite a big leap. Personally, I'd like to stick
> to 2.7.x on my infrastructure for awhile, now that I have extremely
> limited time for maintenance available…
I've only recently started with puppet, so I might flip the other way at least
on the master. The bug I was concerned with is on the client side anyway,
though, so having that fixed in the repoforge version would definitely be
valuable.
>> How any of this might play into Repoforge's packaging guidelines I have no
>> idea.
>
> Having that said, I think it makes sense for us to provide 2.7.x for
> quite some time.
That makes sense to me.
It's particularly true for CentOS 5, I think, because of the requirement to
replace a core package (ruby) with a newer version to support puppet 3.x.
It might be more arguable for CentOS 6, where I believe the system version of
ruby is more recent, but figuring that out sounds like it would be a lot more
work.
> Steve has just merged Tom's pull request in, so now
> it's up to Dag to build it and it will become available at some point.
Although I can't see the merge on github, I'm sure I am just not looking in the
right place. Presumably it's happening in a git repository fork somewhere.
Some days are just too educational...
-- Ian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
