Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL

Ken Dreyer ktdreyer at
Mon Oct 22 18:25:22 UTC 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at> wrote:
> 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.

My biggest concern is that 2.6 will not get security updates for the
lifetime of EPEL 5 and 6. To me it seems better to bite the bullet
now, get version 3 into updates-testing, set the karma requirement
very high just as the maintainers did for the 0.25 -> 2.6 transition.

This is the main problem I see with parallel-installable packages,
particularly in EPEL - it seems to give users an assumption that the
old packages are fine.

- Ken

More information about the devel mailing list