Nigel Kersten wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Douglas Garstang >> Lets play rock paper scissors to see who files a bug... > > That's uncharitable and unfair.
Indeed. I usually joke that all complaints should be submitted in
unified diff format. I actually feel bad anytime I file a bug without
a patch.
> The package maintainers are responsible for their packages.
> The spec file was in the upstream source as a convenience to make it
> easier for people to rebuild packages themselves, but the maintainers
> are still responsible for the package and spec files.
I think it might be reasonable to have a rake task to help automate
creating packages for various systems. But I've never spent the time
to try and implement that, so I'm in no position to say that's how it
should be.
Doing it well would be nice, but more involved than a few lines of
code. I think you'd want to default to detecting the current OS and
version (via facter, naturally) but perhaps allow for building against
other versions (or even similar OS's, like building for RHEL/CentOS on
a Fedora host). That gets messy quickly.
I'm not sure what's so wrong with grabbing the packages provided for
various distros/OS's really. I know for Fedora and RHEL/CentOS I try
to keep my personal repository updated quickly and/or have the
packages in the official repositories. For Debian/Ubuntu, building
from a git clone is fairly easy (makes me a tad jealous even :).
Around the time of new releases, we (as in Fedora/EPEL maintainers)
usually don't push updates into the official repositories as quickly,
in order to let the early adopters help flush out unintended
regressions or changes in behavior. I think it's reasonable to
expect that folks following this list and eager for the very latest
packages either know where they can get them or are capable of
building them on their own -- if s/2.6.0/2.6.1, screws anyone, they
shouldn't be building their own packages in the first place ;).
I can try to submit the trivial patch to change the version from 2.6.0
to 2.6.1, but really, if we're going to keep the rpm spec files in the
tarball, someone that cares deeply (i.e. someone that has the balls to
bitch about it on the list and not be willing to file a bug) should
work on a patch to make this happen more automatically. That way when
James does a release it just works, and doesn't add more work to all
that he and many other folks already do to prepare, test, and push a
new release.
In the interim, you're welcome to use the packages (binary and/or
source) that I've prepared for Fedora and RHEL/CentOS:
http://tmz.fedorapeople.org/repo/puppet/
(Note that I provide these packages without warranty, and while I'm
grateful for any testing and reports of packaging issues, I'm not at
all likely to respond quickly or kindly anyone demanding any sort of
support from me for them.)
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to
complain.
-- Lily Tomlin
pgpI1DhBC6EFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
