On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:50:17PM -0500, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > Hi Julien, > > I'm certainly interested in this but what's the gain over using vendor > packaged RPMs, or the ones in EPEL? > > Thanks, > > Trevor
Trevor, Thanks for your interest. First I would like to clarify that this is not a call against vendor packages, this is an invitation to Puppetlabs to come and work closer with the community to improve the Puppet rpms. The gains are several: I expect that if we go for old-fashioned rpms, we will get smaller packages, it will be easier to update one library, or even to patch Puppet. It will also improve the integration with other ruby applications like The foreman. Puppet 4 has not reached the community yet and building those packages will also help a lot of people to migrate to Puppet 4, because those packages would be a lot closer than what existed with Puppet 3. The EPEL packages are still puppet 3 and EPEL does not bring the ability to have slotted repositories. With this SIG we could have one repo for 4.2.x, one for 4.3.x so you can get the version that you need. Bringing that effort closer to the actual community and building the product with the community will give visibility and probably improve the overall quality of the code thanks to extra testing that could be made regarding CentOS. I hope that contributors and people at Puppetlabs will see the value of this and will help us to get a better puppet for everyone. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Open-Source Consultant V_/_ Inuits - https://www.inuits.eu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/20151006220134.GA12285%40nitrogen. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
