On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 09:13 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >> Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
> >> rid of it,
> >
> > Of course you can. In fact we've
On 10/23/2012 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
rid of it,
Of course you can. In fact we've done this more than once in Fedora.
There was a gtk+3 package parallel insta
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:21:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 23.10.2012 17:21, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> >>Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to
> >>get rid of it, although puppet 4 might be 100% compatible with
> >That's not true. In the future, puppet can obs
Dne 23.10.2012 17:21, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to
get rid of it, although puppet 4 might be 100% compatible with
That's not true. In the future, puppet can obsolete puppet3 -- for example,
in EPEL 7.
Yes, it can, but I doubt it
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Michael Stahnke
> wrote:
>> Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
>>
>> I'd really like to fix it.
>>
>> Problems:
>> * Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
>
> I'd really like to fix it.
>
> Problems:
> * Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is not
> 100% compatible with 1.9.3. The number of issues
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 15:47 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Once you introduce version into the name, you will never be able to get
> rid of it,
Of course you can. In fact we've done this more than once in Fedora.
There was a gtk+3 package parallel installable with with 'gtk+' (which
was a 2.x versi
> From: Greg Swift
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Date: 10/23/2012 15:51
> Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL
> Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oc
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
>> overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
>> package be called puppet in so
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> We can make the new package available, and do something to publicize that
> there is going to be a change. When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for
> security updates, the new package gets the old name and obsoletes the
> temporary name.
The
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
> overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
> package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others
> (along with bin files
I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
overall compatibility. Puppet is a distributed system. Having the
package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others
(along with bin files/utils) will only the make the overall
user-experience of Puppet worse IM
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Yes, I understand that ... therefore you need two versions of puppet
> installed in parallel. There was proposal to prepare puppet3
> package, while I think that the correct way is to move puppet to
> version 3 and prepare new puppet2 o
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
Fedora Infrastructure has begun using ansible for some system setup
and other orchestration/automation tasks.
Our (just beginning) public repos of it are here:
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/
Just out of my curiosity, i
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 23.10.2012 15:37, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just
introduces
complication into the packaging.
>>
Dne 23.10.2012 15:37, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just introduces
complication into the packaging.
Introducing new package is complication anyway, so what is the point?
See ear
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 23.10.2012 15:10, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Lets have puppet-3.x and puppet2 for whoever wants to use old version.
But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just introduce
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >But that doesn't help people running puppet 2.6 _now_, and just introduces
> >complication into the packaging.
> Introducing new package is complication anyway, so what is the point?
See earlier comments. The point is that when the up
Dne 23.10.2012 15:10, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I vote for having puppet3 and not touching the default version. This
will be more challenging, but we all know a bit about puppet upgrades
and transitions - it can be big pain.
Lets have
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >I vote for having puppet3 and not touching the default version. This
> >will be more challenging, but we all know a bit about puppet upgrades
> >and transitions - it can be big pain.
> Lets have puppet-3.x and puppet2 for whoever wants
Dne 23.10.2012 09:55, Lukas Zapletal napsal(a):
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by ve
> I'm sure that 2.6 won't last for the life of EL5, let alone EL6. At
> the same time, I didn't push to get 2.7 in EPEL because it isn't a
> completely compatible update. And 3.0 was coming so I figured we
> could wait to see what things looked like when it did. The
> alternative would have been
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
> Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
> non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by very loud
> trumpets and fireworks beforehand,
> Fedora Infrastructure has begun using ansible for some system setup
> and other orchestration/automation tasks.
>
> Our (just beginning) public repos of it are here:
>
> http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/
>
Just out of my curiosity, is Fedora Infra going to replace Puppe
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
>>> went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version as is,
>>>
Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version as is,
happily getting security-only updates.
My biggest concern is that 2.6 will n
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:25:22PM -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
> > went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version as is,
> > happily getting security-only updates.
> My biggest concern is that 2.6 will not get
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful if it
> went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version as is,
> happily getting security-only updates.
My biggest concern is that 2.6 will not get security u
> From: Michael Stahnke
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, wrote:
> >> From: Seth Vidal
> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, wrote:
>> From: Seth Vidal
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
ansibile is exactly what I've been looking at as a puppet replacement.
If anyone has experience with both, I'd greatly appreciate hearing of
their experiences. I don't relish the idea of making the conversion,
but I really do get the im
> From: Seth Vidal
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal
> wrote:
> >> There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
infrastructure.
> >
> > Could you explain what you mean by "clientless", please? It seems to
> > me th
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt infrastructure.
Could you explain what you mean by "clientless", please? It seems to
me that there always needs to be "something" runn
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt infrastructure.
Could you explain what you mean by "clientless", please? It seems to
me that there always needs to be "something" running at the client
handling the data from the serv
> From: Matthew Miller
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Cc: epel-devel-l...@redhat.com
> Date: 10/19/2012 19:35
> Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL
> Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -070
> From: Seth Vidal
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> >>
> >>> I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This
is
> >>> a problem when you have a
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:29:57 -0700
Michael Stahnke wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM,
> Seth Vidal wrote:
> > I'm less worried about the people requesting the newness b/c they
> > clearly want change. I'm worried about the people who run rhel b/c
> > they fear change.
>
> I'm more worr
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My proposal would be the following:
>>> * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
>>> * Move EPEL 5 to the latest 2.7.x br
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
My proposal would be the following:
* Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
* Move EPEL 5 to the latest 2.7.x branch. This is the last branch of
Puppet that supports Ruby 1.8.5, and works
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:35:28PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> > * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
>
> Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
> non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> My proposal would be the following:
> * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
> * Move EPEL 5 to the latest 2.7.x branch. This is the last branch of
> Puppet that supports Ruby 1.8.5, and works with 3.0 masters.
The last big Puppet
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:31:57PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
infrastructure.
I do not want to be hogtied like this again.
Yeah, but we're not going to make _you_ use Puppet. :)
Damned i
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:31:57PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> There is a reason I want to move to a clientless configmgmt
> infrastructure.
> I do not want to be hogtied like this again.
Yeah, but we're not going to make _you_ use Puppet. :)
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.
Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have a
non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by very loud
trumpets and fireworks beforehand, the d
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to
support t
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>
>> I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
>> a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to
>> support the widest variety of host populations
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I (we) completely realize this isn't totally awesome either. This is
a problem when you have a distributed application that is trying to
support the widest variety of host populations we can.
This request was brought to us by community members, Re
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>
>> Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
>>
>> I'd really like to fix it.
>>
>> Problems:
>> * Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is
>
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is not
100% compatible with 1.9.3. The number of issues in this space conti
Puppet in the Fedora/EPEL ecosystem is a bit wonky currently.
I'd really like to fix it.
Problems:
* Fedora 17 (and higher) ships with Ruby 1.9.x and Puppet 2.7.x. 2.7.x is not
100% compatible with 1.9.3. The number of issues in this space continues to
grow.
* EPEL 5/6 still have Puppet 2.6.
50 matches
Mail list logo
