Fixing Puppet in Fedora/EPEL

Greg Swift xaeth at
Tue Oct 23 19:50:34 UTC 2012

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at> wrote:
> 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 know that 2.6 is no longer maintained?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 When 2.6.x is no longer maintained for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.

An easy way would be to roll and update to the 2.6 release that logs a
deprecation error on start via the init script.

More information about the devel mailing list