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. Unless accompanied by very loud > trumpets and fireworks beforehand, the day that update went out would be a > very sad and busy day for a number of sysadmins. > > 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. > Having a parallel installable package makes sense to me. If it can't be parallel installed -- perhaps the question of whether to allow conflicts in epel that was recently raised would be a good thing to look at here as well? https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2012-October/msg00015.html -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpcSpFBc_o51.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
