Are they out there somewhere? I don''t see anything on EPEL. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
windowsrefund wrote:> Are they out there somewhere? I don''t see anything on EPEL.They''ll be in epel-testing as soon as the next push is done. You could grab puppet and ruby-augeas from: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/success.psp if you didn''t want to wait another day or two. I do hope that a push comes within that time, as there are some security fixes for other packages in the EPEL queue. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Thank you On Dec 22, 10:45 am, Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> wrote:> windowsrefund wrote: > > Are they out there somewhere? I don''t see anything on EPEL. > > They''ll be in epel-testing as soon as the next push is done. > > You could grab puppet and ruby-augeas from:http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/success.pspif you > didn''t want to wait another day or two. I do hope that a push comes > within that time, as there are some security fixes for other packages > in the EPEL queue. > > -- > Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a > Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. > -- Hunter S. Thompson > > application_pgp-signature_part > < 1KViewDownload--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello, ----- "Todd Zullinger" <tmz@pobox.com> wrote:> windowsrefund wrote: > > Are they out there somewhere? I don''t see anything on EPEL. > > They''ll be in epel-testing as soon as the next push is done. > > You could grab puppet and ruby-augeas from: > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/success.psp if you > didn''t want to wait another day or two. I do hope that a push comes > within that time, as there are some security fixes for other packages > in the EPEL queue.What is the rationale for the ruby-augeas requirement? Nothing in puppet *requires* it, surely it''s an optional extra that unlocks some additional but optional features, it seems to be a completely bogus over statement of the requirements. It used to be that EPEL packages were useful, this addition of beta quality software as a requirement changes that unfortunately. -- R.I.Pienaar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
R.I.Pienaar wrote:> Hello, > > ----- "Todd Zullinger" <tmz@pobox.com> wrote: > >> windowsrefund wrote: >>> Are they out there somewhere? I don''t see anything on EPEL. >> They''ll be in epel-testing as soon as the next push is done. >> >> You could grab puppet and ruby-augeas from: >> http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/success.psp if you >> didn''t want to wait another day or two. I do hope that a push comes >> within that time, as there are some security fixes for other packages >> in the EPEL queue. > > > What is the rationale for the ruby-augeas requirement? Nothing in puppet *requires* it, surely it''s an optional extra that unlocks some additional but optional features, it seems to be a completely bogus over statement of the requirements. > > It used to be that EPEL packages were useful, this addition of beta quality software as a requirement changes that unfortunately.Yes, the requirement for ruby-augeas is optional. -- bk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi> What is the rationale for the ruby-augeas requirement? Nothing in > puppet *requires* it, surely it''s an optional extra that unlocks some > additional but optional features, it seems to be a completely bogus > over statement of the requirements.well in .7 there is now an augeas type which uses ruby-augeas. So where to draw the line? When is a new type an additional but optional feature? cheers pete --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello, ----- "Bryan Kearney" <bkearney@redhat.com> wrote:> > It used to be that EPEL packages were useful, this addition of beta > quality software as a requirement changes that unfortunately. > > > Yes, the requirement for ruby-augeas is optional.Yet the EPEL RPM lists it in the Requires? so that means the EPEL packages make it not optional, This is where I am seeing what the current state of the EPEL puppet spec is: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/puppet/devel/puppet.spec?revision=HEAD&view=markup -- R.I.Pienaar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
R.I.Pienaar wrote:> What is the rationale for the ruby-augeas requirement? Nothing in > puppet *requires* it, surely it''s an optional extra that unlocks > some additional but optional features, it seems to be a completely > bogus over statement of the requirements.Just as ruby-shadow is an optional feature that is now a requirement (as is libselinux-ruby in the Fedora builds). The idea is that these requirements do no harm and they provide additional functionality out of the box to those who want it.> It used to be that EPEL packages were useful, this addition of beta > quality software as a requirement changes that unfortunately.Other than the tiny amount of disk space that the ruby-augeas requirement pulls in, I don''t see how it changes much at all. You don''t have to use the augeas type if you don''t find it suitable to you. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I used to think the brain was the most advanced part of the body. Then I realized, look what''s telling me that. -- Emo Phillips
Hello, ----- "Peter Meier" <peter.meier@immerda.ch> wrote:> > well in .7 there is now an augeas type which uses ruby-augeas. > So where to draw the line? When is a new type an additional but > optional > feature? >There are also > 10 nagios types, yet we don''t install nagios on every server, it can manage k5 stuff, yet we don''t force that on everyone. We install it where we need it. Puppet *requires* ruby, it does not require augeas or nagios. I think the line should be drawn between critical requires and optional fluff that enable a feature but that many people don''t want to use. This can be demonstrated with facter easily: # puppetd --test /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/puppet.rb:9:in `require'': no such file to load -- facter (LoadError) from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/puppet.rb:9 from /usr/sbin/puppetd:164:in `require'' from /usr/sbin/puppetd:164 That''s a requirement, when puppet does the same for augeas then it too is a requirement. -- R.I.Pienaar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
R.I.Pienaar wrote:> There are also> 10 nagios types, yet we don''t install nagios on > every server, it can manage k5 stuff, yet we don''t force that on > everyone. We install it where we need it. Puppet *requires* ruby, > it does not require augeas or nagios.The size of pulling in nagios versus ruby-augeas is something that is considered here too. Since rpm has no concept of Suggests: like deb does, there is a bit of a balancing act. When we can pull things in so that functionality "just works" without drastically increasing the requirements, we do so. Is there a problem caused, other than the loss of a few kb of disk space, by requiring ruby-augeas?> I think the line should be drawn between critical requires and > optional fluff that enable a feature but that many people don''t want > to use.That''s certainly a valid belief. There are also others who prefer that their packaging system will pull in additional packages so that things work out of the box with less fiddling. Pleasing everyone with one package isn''t possible. As the new augeas type was one of the features listed in the release announcement, we felt ensuring that it worked by default was a worthy trade-off. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. -- H. L. Mencken
Hello, ----- "Todd Zullinger" <tmz@pobox.com> wrote:> Is there a problem caused, other than the loss of a few kb of disk > space, by requiring ruby-augeas?Clearly that is a non issue. The issue is I''d like to choose when I put beta quality software on my systems and not some arbitrary inflated requires from my packages that arent really requires. The way it is now that choice is being made. It''s not a problem, I''ll just use the spec file in the tarball to do build the rpms. But its an unfortunate regression. -- R.I.Pienaar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---