This sort of support would have saved me about 2-3 days of time here recently.
It certainly has my support, and I have upvoted the pull the request. On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:55:50 AM UTC-5, Kelsey Hightower wrote: > > 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/-/vASRU4XLme4J. 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.
