Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL

Matthew Miller mattdm at
Tue Oct 23 18:46:30 UTC 2012

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> I am still not in favor of a puppet3 package. This is largely due to
> overall compatibility.  Puppet is a distributed system.  Having the
> package be called puppet in some repositories and puppet3 in others
> (along with bin files/utils) will only the make the overall
> user-experience of Puppet worse IMHO.
> Also if the existing Puppet (2.6.x) stays out there, how would a user
> know that 2.6 is no longer maintained?  Does having a second package
> without an upgrade path leaves the end-user out-to-dry in the longrun?

We can make the new package available, and do something to publicize that
there is going to be a change. When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for
security updates, the new package gets the old name and obsoletes the
temporary name.

If there's some way to put deprecation notices into the default output for
puppet, it might be worth considering that.

Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm at>

More information about the devel mailing list