I wasn't aware of this ticket. RPMs are definitely a +1 for me.
Trevor
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Tim Skirvin wrote:
> Tim Skirvin writes:
>
> >>> Perhaps Puppet Labs should provide RPMs?
>
> >> That's a good idea. We've certainly talked about it, but just haven't
> made
> >> th
Tim Skirvin writes:
>>> Perhaps Puppet Labs should provide RPMs?
>> That's a good idea. We've certainly talked about it, but just haven't made
>> the time for it. If you file a ticket at
>> https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/CPR that would at least help us track
>> that request.
>
Eric Shamow writes:
> Not based on experience specifically with beaker but have you tried
> using SCLs to install ruby 1.9.3?
That was going to be my next task, if I didn't get an adequate
response here. I don't expect it to be an *easy* one, though.
Michael Stahnke writes:
>> If using the Beaker framework is going to be a core part of
>> determining that a puppet module has been "tested", I figure I'd better be
>> able to use Beaker. And so far, this seems tricky, at least on my RHEL 6
>> systems.
>> Perhaps Puppet Labs sho
Tim,
Not based on experience specifically with beaker but have you tried using SCLs
to install ruby 1.9.3?
-Eric
--
Eric Shamow
Sent with Airmail
On October 3, 2014 at 7:53:09 AM, Tim Skirvin (tskir...@fnal.gov) wrote:
If using the Beaker framework is going to be a core part of
determining
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Tim Skirvin wrote:
> If using the Beaker framework is going to be a core part of
> determining that a puppet module has been "tested", I figure I'd better be
> able to use Beaker. And so far, this seems tricky, at least on my RHEL 6
> systems.
>
>
If using the Beaker framework is going to be a core part of
determining that a puppet module has been "tested", I figure I'd better be
able to use Beaker. And so far, this seems tricky, at least on my RHEL 6
systems.
Perhaps Puppet Labs should provide RPMs?
Failing that,
