<tt><font size=2>> From: Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org></font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
<devel@lists.fedoraproject.org></font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> Cc: epel-devel-list@redhat.com</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> Date: 10/19/2012 19:35</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> Subject: Re: Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> Sent by: devel-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:<br>
> > * Move EPEL 6, Fedora >= 17 to use Puppet 3.0.<br>
> <br>
> Speaking for my previous job, it would really be unfortunate to have
a<br>
> non-compatible update of puppet in EPEL. Unless accompanied by very
loud<br>
> trumpets and fireworks beforehand, the day that update went out would
be a<br>
> very sad and busy day for a number of sysadmins.<br>
> <br>
> I'm not opposed to putting puppet 3 in, but it'd really be helpful
if it<br>
> went in as "puppet3" or something, and left the stable version
as is,<br>
> happily getting security-only updates.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes, please! Something like that
would be great. It was done for bacula (and may still be). I
did finally get off bacula2, but it took a long time because I had many
clients that couldn't run anything else and updating those clients (OS-wise)
had many dependencies of their own.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It's a simple unavoidable fact that
some systems just cannot stay as current as they ideally should and the
dependencies may run very deep and well beyond the realm of software packages
and OSes alone.<br>
--<br>
John Florian</font>
<br>
<br>