Hi, I just want to know what the state of the Debian packages is? I''ve downloaded (and is currently testing with) the packages from http:// reductivelabs.com/downloads/packages/Debian/ They seem to miss some important stuff such as init scripts and puppetrun, and they hasn''t all the dependencies defined (eg. ruby). From the info part of the packages I can''t see who''s making them, so I''ll ask here. Looking at Debian sid and etch I can see that there is official Debian maintainers for puppet, it''s just that the packages there are pretty outdated (0.18.x). Are there any timeline for when it''s going to be updated and is it possible to use those packages on Debian sarge as well...? -- Med venlig hilsen Juri Rischel Jensen Fab:IT ApS Vesterbrogade 50 DK-1620 København Tlf: 70 202 407 / Fax: 33 313 640 www.fab-it.dk / juri@fab-it.dk
Juri Rischel Jensen wrote:> Hi, > > I just want to know what the state of the Debian packages is? I''ve > downloaded (and is currently testing with) the packages from http:// > reductivelabs.com/downloads/packages/Debian/ They seem to miss some > important stuff such as init scripts and puppetrun, and they hasn''t > all the dependencies defined (eg. ruby). From the info part of the > packages I can''t see who''s making them, so I''ll ask here.I''m going to stop making these packages, and I should have a while ago. They''re generated using a package-creation tool, and as you note, they aren''t very good.> Looking at Debian sid and etch I can see that there is official > Debian maintainers for puppet, it''s just that the packages there are > pretty outdated (0.18.x). Are there any timeline for when it''s going > to be updated and is it possible to use those packages on Debian > sarge as well...?I believe that Jamie and Matt (the package developers) were waiting for a 0.19 release to stabilize; I thought they would have put 0.19.3 out already, but I expect they will soon. Jamie? Matt? -- The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us. --Calvin and Hobbes (Bill Watterson) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:47:51PM +0200, Juri Rischel Jensen wrote:> Looking at Debian sid and etch I can see that there is official > Debian maintainers for puppet, it''s just that the packages there are > pretty outdated (0.18.x). Are there any timeline for when it''s going > to be updated and is it possible to use those packages on Debian > sarge as well...?Yes, the packages work on Sarge, and also Ubuntu Breezy and Dapper. I''m not planning on breaking backwards compatibility with any of those releases if I can help it. As Luke said, I''ve held off putting out a 0.19.x packaged release, because there are some unresolved Debian-related bugs in the code (unresolved by me, by the way). That argument''s getting weaker, since it looks like some people are running 0.19 independently on Debian systems without incident, so I might get around to updating the packages in the next day or two. It''ll be a slightly tricky transition, though -- we''re moving state directories out of /etc, so perhaps test the packages on a scratch system before going too nuts... - Matt
Matthew Palmer wrote:> > As Luke said, I''ve held off putting out a 0.19.x packaged release, because > there are some unresolved Debian-related bugs in the code (unresolved by me, > by the way). That argument''s getting weaker, since it looks like some > people are running 0.19 independently on Debian systems without incident, so > I might get around to updating the packages in the next day or two. It''ll > be a slightly tricky transition, though -- we''re moving state directories > out of /etc, so perhaps test the packages on a scratch system before going > too nuts...So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the package, right, not in the code? -- Q. Does Usenet help stamp out ignorance? A. That depends on whether by "stamp out" you mean "eliminate" or "reproduce rapidly in great quantity." -- From the Usenet FAQ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:34:34PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:> Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > > As Luke said, I''ve held off putting out a 0.19.x packaged release, because > > there are some unresolved Debian-related bugs in the code (unresolved by me, > > by the way). That argument''s getting weaker, since it looks like some > > people are running 0.19 independently on Debian systems without incident, so > > I might get around to updating the packages in the next day or two. It''ll > > be a slightly tricky transition, though -- we''re moving state directories > > out of /etc, so perhaps test the packages on a scratch system before going > > too nuts... > > So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the > package, right, not in the code?Yep -- my plan is that the post-installation script will take a look at the system, determine that the user doesn''t explicitly want (say) ssldir in /etc (by peering at the config files) and then move it to where it should be. - Matt
Hi Matt On Oct 10, 2006, at 22:34, Matthew Palmer wrote:> Yes, the packages work on Sarge, and also Ubuntu Breezy and > Dapper. I''m not > planning on breaking backwards compatibility with any of those > releases if I > can help it.That sounds good. Not all Debian maintainers thinks that way - I recall a conversation I had with the cfengine maintainer where I suggested that he used Berkeley DB v. 3, because cfengine supported that and I then could make an easy rebuild for stable, but he wanted to build against the newest version - but that was back in the woody days...> As Luke said, I''ve held off putting out a 0.19.x packaged release, > because > there are some unresolved Debian-related bugs in the code > (unresolved by me, > by the way). That argument''s getting weaker, since it looks like some > people are running 0.19 independently on Debian systems without > incident, so > I might get around to updating the packages in the next day or > two. It''ll > be a slightly tricky transition, though -- we''re moving state > directories > out of /etc, so perhaps test the packages on a scratch system > before going > too nuts...Thanks. I''m looking forward to those new packages. -- Med venlig hilsen Juri Rischel Jensen Fab:IT ApS Vesterbrogade 50 DK-1620 København Tlf: 70 202 407 / Fax: 33 313 640 www.fab-it.dk / juri@fab-it.dk
Juri Rischel Jensen <juri@fab-it.dk> writes:> That sounds good. Not all Debian maintainers thinks that way - I recall > a conversation I had with the cfengine maintainer where I suggested that > he used Berkeley DB v. 3, because cfengine supported that and I then > could make an easy rebuild for stable, but he wanted to build against > the newest version - but that was back in the woody days...Well, for libraries like that, Debian really does not like having to keep multiple versions of the same library in the current distribution. So there is a lot of pressure (for good reasons, I think) to get maintainers to standardize on the same version of C libraries. Anything else increases the complexity of maintaining the distribution a lot. Puppet is much easier since it''s pure Ruby. For something like cfengine, the best way to handle it these days would be to maintain a backport for backports.org. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:> On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:34:34PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: >> >> So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the >> package, right, not in the code? > > Yep -- my plan is that the post-installation script will take a > look at the > system, determine that the user doesn''t explicitly want (say) > ssldir in /etc > (by peering at the config files) and then move it to where it > should be.Are your current debian/* files available online anywhere? I would like to build some custom packages for 0.19.x and if you''ve already done most of the work.... -Blake
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Blake Barnett wrote:> On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:34:34PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: > >> > >> So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the > >> package, right, not in the code? > > > > Yep -- my plan is that the post-installation script will take a > > look at the > > system, determine that the user doesn''t explicitly want (say) > > ssldir in /etc > > (by peering at the config files) and then move it to where it > > should be. > > Are your current debian/* files available online anywhere? I would > like to build some custom packages for 0.19.x and if you''ve already > done most of the work....bzr repo is at http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/bzr/puppet.debian, or just use the .diff.gz from the official 0.18.4 packages. If the customisations are generally applicable, it''d be nice if you could submit them to the Debian BTS, either as a mergeable bzr branch or a patch. - Matt -- The main advantages of Haynes and Chilton manuals are that they cost $15, where the factory manuals cost $100 and up, and that they will tell you how to use two hammers, a block of wood, and a meerkat to replace "special tool no. 2-112-A" -- Matt Roberds in asr.
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Blake Barnett wrote: >> On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:34:34PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: >>>> >>>> So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the >>>> package, right, not in the code? >>> >>> Yep -- my plan is that the post-installation script will take a >>> look at the >>> system, determine that the user doesn''t explicitly want (say) >>> ssldir in /etc >>> (by peering at the config files) and then move it to where it >>> should be. >> >> Are your current debian/* files available online anywhere? I would >> like to build some custom packages for 0.19.x and if you''ve already >> done most of the work.... > > bzr repo is at http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/bzr/puppet.debian, > or just > use the .diff.gz from the official 0.18.4 packages. If the > customisations > are generally applicable, it''d be nice if you could submit them to the > Debian BTS, either as a mergeable bzr branch or a patch.Awesome. If anything I add can be used by others I''ll definitely send you a patch. Thanks, -Blake
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Blake Barnett wrote: >> On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:34:34PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: >>>> >>>> So the new packages do move the state dirs? I assume that''s in the >>>> package, right, not in the code? >>> >>> Yep -- my plan is that the post-installation script will take a >>> look at the >>> system, determine that the user doesn''t explicitly want (say) >>> ssldir in /etc >>> (by peering at the config files) and then move it to where it >>> should be. >> >> Are your current debian/* files available online anywhere? I would >> like to build some custom packages for 0.19.x and if you''ve already >> done most of the work.... > > bzr repo is at http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/bzr/puppet.debian, > or just > use the .diff.gz from the official 0.18.4 packages. If the > customisations > are generally applicable, it''d be nice if you could submit them to the > Debian BTS, either as a mergeable bzr branch or a patch. >I''ve setup a bzr repository for the debian stuff I''ve changed from your repository. See it here: http://dre.gs/bzr/puppet.debian/ I''ve added some man pages, and made tweaks to the init scripts and rules file. -Blake