packaging puppet modules

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 16 July 2012 06:19, Thomas Bendler <ml at bendler-net.de> wrote:
> 2012/6/27 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com>
>>
>> I was looking briefly into packaging some Puppet modules, and I was
>> curious if anyone else has gone down this road.
>> [...]
>>
>> Does anyone have suggestions for package naming conventions? It looks
>> like the upstream modules include the creators' names as part of the
>> package names, which strikes me as a little verbose from the
>> perspective of Fedora packaging.
>
>
> I don't think that it make much sense to pack the modules as RPMs. Under
> normal circumstances they must be customized in several different locations
> and would only produce a lot of *.rpmnew files after upgrades without proper
> function test possibilities. The more common way is to organize the modules
> in a VCS.

This isn't true in all cases. Well written modules shouldn't need
customization for use. However, there's a vast array of modules
available, with a lot of duplication in functionality, and certainly
some would be helpful if packaged as RPMs. I have in mind here some of
the puppetlabs modules which will become part of later releases of
puppet, for example.

As to the original question about naming, I don't think there's any
alternative to including the creators' name inthe package name, since
there's a lot of different implementations of modules providing
similar functionality, and it's useful to know which you're
installing.

J.