I agree that folks should manage their repos, but I wanted to throw in
a couple of thoughts:

* The package name hacks (eg puppet3) are usually done by
distributions to allow multiple versions of software to co-exist.

* Take a look at the yum versionlock plugin.  My life has been much
simpler since I deployed it.  For a while I was "exclude"ing puppet
and friends in yum.conf, but that was a real pain.  The versionlock
plugin "pins" a package at the version  you want, and then you can
update when ready.

- Chad

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:36:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Stanhke wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jeff McCune <je...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Robert Rothenberg <rob...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I am using CentOS 6 with the PuppetLabs yum repo from
>> >> http://yum.puppetlabs.com
>> >>
>> >> I noticed that today version 3 is available on the repo, so of course,
>> >> an
>> >> upgrade to Puppet is available.
>> >
>> > Yes, this major version update went live on Monday.  There are a
>> > number of breaking-changes between 2.7 and 3.0 which are described at:
>> > http://links.puppetlabs.com/telly_breaking_changes
>> >
>> >> Ideally, it would have been better if v3 had a different distribution
>> >> name,
>> >> so that systems with v2.7.x are not upgraded (especially if there will
>> >> be
>> >> future releases if v2.7).
>>
>> We sent out several notices about this prior to doing it. The Puppet
>> Labs repositories are designed to be the place you get the latest
>> software from Puppet Labs.  This was a conscious choice.
>>
>> >
>> > Could you please file an issue (with impact data) about the
>> > distribution name issue.  I believe we considered doing what you
>> > describe, but decided against it.  I don't know the reasons off the
>> > top of my head though, an issue will give us a clear place to track
>> > the request, the impact it has on you and your organization, and the
>> > decision we come to (or have already come to).
>> >
>> >> I am concerned about things breaking. So is there a document detailing
>> >> incompatibilities? Will there be future 2.7 releases?
>> There will be.  I'd imagine you'll see activity slow on it though.
>>
>> >
>> > There will be future releases of 2.7.  We will continue to fix bugs in
>> > the 2.7 series, but we are intending to avoid adding any new features
>> > or make any large changes to the behavior of Puppet 2.7.
>
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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/-/AG4SVCmBV1cJ.
>
> 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.



-- 
Chad M. Huneycutt

-- 
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.

Reply via email to