On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:41:00 AM UTC-4, jmslagle wrote: > > > On 06/25/2012 09:25 AM, Kelsey Hightower wrote: > > > > John you make a really good point. Rubygems support would be totally > > optional. One of my hopes is that once people are able to use rubygems > > for things like parser functions and report processors we start seeing > > more OS packages built from those gems. > > > > > > More useful might be a good and easy way to create OS packages to do > plugins like this. > > That would solve some amount of the chicken and egg problem you see > bootstrapping puppet clients that need certain plugins. > > I suspect this change will allow that since it will suck plugin stuff > from a system location, so we don't have to go trying to create packages > to throw stuff in $libdir? > > Thanks! > > Jason >
Yep, also see Eric's example of using something like gem2rpm to create those OS packages. If you like this idea, please up vote the ticket and add your comments there. -- 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/-/R3GfTzJw6CgJ. 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.
