On 02/05/2013 07:58 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM, John Moser <john.r.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/05/2013 07:45 PM, Ryan Tandy wrote:
John Moser <john.r.moser <at> gmail.com> writes:
2. Convince Ubuntu to put the newest Puppetmaster in Backports. I am
not advocating this either.
Slightly off-topic, but FWIW I would be happy to see raring's puppet
(whatever version that ends up being) in precise-backports.
lucid-backports has puppet 2.7 and that made my life a LOT easier since
my puppetmaster runs precise and I am using some recent modules. Having
backports available but not installed by default is really quite nice.
Furthermore it's quite likely that at some point I'll have some clients
running a newer Ubuntu than the puppetmaster, and it would be great to
be able to support it just by upgrading puppetmaster to a backports
version.
http://apt.puppetlabs.com/
While we're at it, why is etckeeper stuff in the package? The Puppetlabs
guys said because it's in Debian's package and "Debian packagers are
fruitbats", so they're imitating "for compatibility."
I know Nigel Kirsten and Andrew Pollock, so if there is stuff wrong in
the debian packaging I am happy to chat with them.
I'm just relaying what I got from #puppet on freenode. There seems to
be no purpose to hooking etckeeper--at least, none that warrants hooking
it into puppet by default.
-A
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
