On 3 October 2012 15:02, Rilindo Foster <rili...@mac.com> wrote: > I usually explicitly set the $puppetversion in my manifest for my > environment. Furthermore, I have my own mirror copied from puppet labs repo > and install it from that location instead. That way, I have control of what > I push out and only update when I know that the new version is sound. > > So I am not sure what the hubbub is all about. If you are not controlling > what you push out, don't be surprised when something breaks. >
I'm partially pissed of with PL as well, and I'm really not liking the responses that say, "well you should manage the package versions you have installed" To me, the point is here, that this is more of a case of BAD repo managment. It's NOT the same package, AND it doesn't have full 100% backward compatibility - So it's a DIFFERENT package - give it a new name. Also, those gloating that manage their packages using version numbers, and are not affected by this - YOU ARE NOT HELPING. The problem is HOW the package was pushed out, not the fact that it was pushed out. Also, puppet v2 is also going to be available still - If it was me, I would have created a meta package called puppet, and 'linked' that puppet 2, and called puppet3, puppet 3. I'd also create a package called puppet2. And about 6 weeks after release, upgrade meta package puppet to puppet 3. -- I'm just saying :) > > - RIlindo > > > On Oct 3, 2012, at 8:16 AM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote: > > > I am not directly affected by this issue, but I agree with those > complaining that it was unwise, or at least inhospitable for PL to release > Puppet 3 into its repositories in this way, especially considering that PL > intends to continue with maintenance releases in the 2.7 series. It is > tantamount to a recommendation for all users to upgrade to the new line > immediately, and considering the number of breaking changes, I cannot > believe that that was intended. > > The customary way to handle dual lines of packages is to give one line a > different name, for example "puppet3-*" instead of plain "puppet-*". > Failing that, it is essential that the package name for the 2.7 series be > changed, else the PL repository will be near-useless to people who want to > stay at 2.7 for the time being. If that's the plan then the first > "puppet2-*" packages should have been released at the same time that the > mainline packages were updated to v 3.0. > > Alternatively, PL could set up a separate repository for the Puppet 2 > maintenance releases. > > Distinguishing the lines only by their version numbers simply isn't > useful, and dropping v3 packages with their breaking changes into the same > repository with v2 *will* cause breakage for users. PL, I urge you to > reconsider. Soon. > > > John > > Agreed + 101 (looks at RIP) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. 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.
