Re: puppet 0.24.2

["Michael Stahnke" <mastahnke gmail com>]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip kanarip com> wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  >
>  >> I'm sure you all appreciate people are running *enterprise linux* for
>  >> a reason, and do not want to bother with package foo like this like if
>  >> it were Fedora.
>  >
>  > Breaking user configuration shouldn't be done in Fedora updates either.
>  >
>
>  This isn't about Fedora. This doesn't concern Fedora.
>
>  I just wish I could count on the Enterprise Linux branch - with or
>  without EPEL and/or subscriptions and/or a toll-free number - to be more
>  stable, so that there's actually a good (and valid!) reason to use it.
>
>
>  --
>  Kind regards,
>
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen
>  -kanarip
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
>  epel-devel-list redhat com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
Do you test every update before you automatically apply it to
production systems?   I know my enterprise sure does.  While normally
updates are harmless, I have seen RHEL updates (the ones we pay for)
that have erased /var/named, edited /etc/syslog.conf and probably a
lot more stuff that I can't recall off the top of my head.  If you
suicide update, I don't think it's very fair to get mad at the
volunteers trying to provide you software.  Yes, it was a bug in
puppet.  I understand this.  They shipped it, we packaged it.

Unfortunately, right now due to people/resource constraints in EPEL,
we push RHEL4/5 and Fedora updates on a separate schedule.    Fedora
uses a completely different build/update system than EPEL currently
can.  There is a lot of effort underway to  to move our build system
to the same as Fedora's, but still we will have a few timing issues
between Fedora and EPEL4 and EPEL5.  It is less than ideal but we are
working to make it better.

stahnma