[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL



On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Seth Vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> 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 we can.
>>
>> This request was brought to us by community members, Red Hat
>> employees, and business partners as well.
>>
>> I am happy to discuss other soutions/ideas too though.  I am not 100%
>> convinced my proposal is the best.
>>
>
> 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 worried about people with hybrid environments where RHEL is
at the core for Puppet. (and somewhat how RHEL 7 could shake out)

Do you consider it ok to not be able to have Fedora agents check into
a RHEL master?

>
> Perhaps they aren't likely to run epel, except it feels like they will run
> epel..... b/c it is pushed so hard by all the el6's.
>
> I agree it is a suboptimal solution. Hey, since you work for puppetlabs - I
> have a new idea - make them maintain backward compat with 2.6 :)
>
Well, yes and no.  We are trying very hard with the 3 series to not
break compatibility. 2.6 and even 2.7 had some ambiguous behavior that
is now better defined which does help that.
> That solves the problem for everyone, right?
>
>
> -sv
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel lists fedoraproject org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]