Puppet users - Mar 2010 - Puppet 0.24.8 RPM (0.25.4 client not backwards compatible)

Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.

So... since our server is running 0.24.8, any other systems we install
from this point on end up getting 0.25 and then fail to talk to the
server.

The clients come up with...
Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: Error 405 on SERVER:
Method Not Allowed

I researched, and found out that this happens when the client is newer
than the server (or to be more specific the server is running 0.24.8
and the client is running 0.25.4)

To whoever decided not to make the client backward compatible, good one!

Doug.

-- 
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.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Douglas Garstang
<doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
> getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
> decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.
>
> So... since our server is running 0.24.8, any other systems we install
> from this point on end up getting 0.25 and then fail to talk to the
> server.
>
> The clients come up with...
> Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: Error 405 on SERVER:
> Method Not Allowed
>
> I researched, and found out that this happens when the client is newer
> than the server (or to be more specific the server is running 0.24.8
> and the client is running 0.25.4)
>
> To whoever decided not to make the client backward compatible, good one!
Puppet clients are *never* backwards compatible across major versions.
You always upgrade the server first.



-- 
nigel

-- 
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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>> To whoever decided not to make the client backward compatible, good
one!
> 
> Puppet clients are *never* backwards compatible across major versions.
> You always upgrade the server first.
As noted here:

"It is also important to note when upgrading that not all versions are
backwards compatible. Newer clients may not work with older servers and
vice-versa. Where possible backwards-compatibility is maintained but
it''s not always totally successful. The best approach is to ensure your
master and clients are the same version. When upgrading it is also
recommended that you upgrade your master first."

http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/ReleaseNotes

cheers pete
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkuQDJMACgkQbwltcAfKi3+hywCfaPR2sqbWBGc66ihIa0aNcFrM
xckAnR6uMqG6QLPF3bupI7ZAEk/C8UUg
=lrA/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
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.

SSL works fine, I''m just having real issues with Foreman reports at
the moment.  The ruby file exists, the rack server is running, foreman
works fine (apart from reporting) and so does puppet but the puppet
reporting into Foreman is broken and it appears to be an issues with
Puppet rather than Foreman.

The issue that we had was that the manifest that ensures puppet is
centrally configured had "ensure => latest" and therefore the
client
updated on all nodes, the server didn''t and everything broke. 
It''s
taken me the best part of a day to make sure that it is all working
again correctly.

We''ve learnt a lesson from this:

* Don''t use ensure=>latest unless you have complete control over the
packages that will be installed.

I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so many
major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for trusting that things
would stay the same! :P

Kind regards,

Matt

On 4 March 2010 19:55, Douglas Garstang <doug.garstang@gmail.com>
wrote:
> All I can is Ugh.
>
> I''m avoiding 0.25 like the plague. The last time I tried to use
it, I
> simply couldn''t the SSL keys to work, and from what I read, others
did
> too. Were those problems fixed?
>
> Doug.
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Nigel Kersten <nigelk@google.com>
wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Douglas Garstang
>> <doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
>>> getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
>>> decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.
>>>
>>> So... since our server is running 0.24.8, any other systems we
install
>>> from this point on end up getting 0.25 and then fail to talk to the
>>> server.
>>>
>>> The clients come up with...
>>> Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: Error 405 on SERVER:
>>> Method Not Allowed
>>>
>>> I researched, and found out that this happens when the client is
newer
>>> than the server (or to be more specific the server is running
0.24.8
>>> and the client is running 0.25.4)
>>>
>>> To whoever decided not to make the client backward compatible, good
one!
>>
>> Puppet clients are *never* backwards compatible across major versions.
>> You always upgrade the server first.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> nigel
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Douglas Garstang
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/garstang
> Email: doug.garstang@gmail.com
> Cell: +1-805-340-5627
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
-- 
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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/03/10 12:00 PM, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
> We''ve learnt a lesson from this:
> 
> * Don''t use ensure=>latest unless you have complete control
over the
> packages that will be installed.
This is serious truth. If you don''t control upstream versioning then
specify versions otherwise ensure => latest will do just that -
install the latest version.
> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so many
> major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for trusting that
things
> would stay the same! :P
> 
I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only increment releases
after extensive testing.

Regards

James Turnbull

- -- 
Author of:
* Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin)
* Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook)
* Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios)
* Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBS5AVyiFa/lDkFHAyAQJ3NQgAsK3tCZCewAEUgu01YWHj0x400XjtNnRO
Wm9KlRIsfCignDtwUfJGQc9MM/6rAZz4KsrgqxWNU8m/3b47hcjqI+0ccuOEl5Ai
0/2VCJRRjXABv5mjzM74Hcy3g5w76uNo/9yooiJRsX5/TXJmwCjGiS6lyn+7AU2B
EMtbq2cjD1CrSQx4BScy80UC0YVHsmGvITkCnO3pqKSJSBWbtLskKIiycFKSghdP
XJRU6gyN8Iyw+f46Pte7FVU5DYNPwESNBKNmNtJi8gw+NOFjIg43LyLzQxLRZ1CK
LoOSefwOfnGocM/Tu3Mfbro5FefavhEfYZq/Fog6uMep0HohxnyLPA==PGo5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
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.

Have you checked in /var/cache/yum/epel/packages/ on the systems that 
you have installed with 0.24.8? You may have a copy there that you can 
copy out and save somewhere for later use on other systems.

Douglas Garstang wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
> getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
> decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.
>
> So... since our server is running 0.24.8, any other systems we install
> from this point on end up getting 0.25 and then fail to talk to the
> server.
>
> The clients come up with...
> Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: Error 405 on SERVER:
> Method Not Allowed
>
> I researched, and found out that this happens when the client is newer
> than the server (or to be more specific the server is running 0.24.8
> and the client is running 0.25.4)
>
> To whoever decided not to make the client backward compatible, good one!
>
> Doug.
>
>   
-- 

Trevor Hemsley
Infrastructure Engineer
.................................................
* C A L Y P S O
* 4th Floor, Tower Point,
44 North Road,
Brighton, BN1 1YR, UK   

OFFICE 	+44 (0) 1273 666 350
FAX 	+44 (0) 1273 666 351

.................................................
www.calypso.com

This electronic-mail might contain confidential information intended 
only for the use by the entity named. If the reader of this message is 
not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

* P * /*/ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail /*/

-- 
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.

On 4 March 2010 20:19, James Turnbull <james@lovedthanlost.net>
wrote:
>> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so many
>> major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for trusting that
things
>> would stay the same! :P
>>
>
> I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only increment
releases
> after extensive testing.
Yeah, please don''t misunderstand me, I''m not blaming EPEL on
this one
at all.  We should have checked that we were pinned to a version on
Puppet that we knew worked.

Another one to add to the "Somebody else should learn from my
mistakes" list! :D

M.

-- 
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.

I''d also recommend (based on previous shooting myself in the foot)
that all of your servers talk to your own internal yum repo if
possible, and not directly to EPEL. Mirror EPEL if you want, but pull
in updates in some process that lets you review them before putting
them into your internal repo. This might help minimise surprises like
this. I don''t think there''s a great way for the EPEL folks to
know
that for puppet going from 0.24.8 to 0.25 is a big deal, but for some
other app going from version 0.x.y to version 0.z is a very minor
deal.

Pete

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace
<mattmacwall@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 20:19, James Turnbull <james@lovedthanlost.net>
wrote:
>>> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so
many
>>> major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for trusting
that things
>>> would stay the same! :P
>>>
>>
>> I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only increment
releases
>> after extensive testing.
>
> Yeah, please don''t misunderstand me, I''m not blaming EPEL
on this one
> at all.  We should have checked that we were pinned to a version on
> Puppet that we knew worked.
>
> Another one to add to the "Somebody else should learn from my
mistakes" list! :D
>
> M.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
-- 
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.

Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 20:19, James Turnbull <james@lovedthanlost.net>
> wrote:
>>> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so
>>> many major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for
trusting that
>>> things would stay the same! :P
>>>
>>
>> I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only increment
>> releases after extensive testing.
>
> Yeah, please don''t misunderstand me, I''m not blaming EPEL
on this
> one at all.  We should have checked that we were pinned to a version
> on Puppet that we knew worked.
This is indeed a tough one and I''m sorry if the update bit folks who
weren''t expecting it.  I definitely would say ensure => present or
ensure => $version are good things to have in place.  The update
announcements are also used to communicate extra information, like the
incompatibility between 0.25 clients and older servers.  There is an
epel-package-announce list¹ that all such package updates are sent and
an RSS feed² as well.

If we tried to keep the EPEL packages completely compatible for an
entire release, the EL-5 packages would be on 0.22 or something.  And
we''d have lots of calls to update.  We''d have a hard time
pushing new
Fedora packages as well if folks running EL puppetmasters were on 0.24
or older.  And it would be very hard to try and backport fixes for
bugs that were long since fixed upstream.  Not a pleasant place to be
all around. :)

I don''t know how the other EPEL maintainers look at this, but I think
a mitigating factor with puppet is that it is still relatively young
and that''s why it changes a good bit still.  After a 1.0 release (or
whatever magical milestone number it ends up being), we''ll likely have
to be more conservative with updates.  But we''ll also likely be able
to rest easily knowing that upstream is happy with that codebase and
will probably be supporting it for clients as well.

Puppet has grown in use quite a lot over the past year or two as more
people discover it and wonder how they ever lived without it.  That
can make it hard when any incompatible changes are made, but I think
the price is worth it in this case.  (It''s a fine compliment to Luke,
Reductive Labs, and all the other great folks who have contributed.)

¹ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-package-announce
 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-package-announce/2010-March/001242.html
²
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rss/rss2.0?release=EL-5&status=stable

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Telephone, n.:
    An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
    of making a disagreeable person keep his distance.
        -- Ambrose Bierce

On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:11 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
> On 4/03/10 11:55 AM, Douglas Garstang wrote:
>> All I can is Ugh.
>> 
>> I''m avoiding 0.25 like the plague. The last time I tried to
use it, I
>> simply couldn''t the SSL keys to work, and from what I read,
others did
>> too. Were those problems fixed?
> 
> There are a lot of people on 0.25.x without any SSL issues.
> 
> I''ll make the same offer I did back then:
> 
> * Can you list out the issues you had?
> * Did you log tickets for them?
> * If not, could you please do so and adding platform and log/trace
> output to the tickets that''d also greatly help.
> 
> 
You can find the SSL problem at http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3083. 
I can''t upgrade until it''s resolved.  The problem is that half
of my computers are over a VPN link with NAT so the client''s
can''t be looked-up using DNS.  Everything works find under 0.24.8
though.

-- 
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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/03/10 1:35 PM, Patrick wrote:
> You can find the SSL problem at
> http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3083.  I can''t upgrade
> until it''s resolved.  The problem is that half of my computers
> are over a VPN link with NAT so the client''s can''t be
looked-up
> using DNS.  Everything works find under 0.24.8 though.
> 
Okay ... I''ll take a look at that ticket.  Do you know, however, if
this is the same issue Douglas is having?  His emails suggested that
nothing worked for him.  You have a specific instance of network
configuration that is tripped because of the reverse look-up rather
than a side-wide SSL issue.

Regards

James Turnbull

- -- 
Author of:
* Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin)
* Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook)
* Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios)
* Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBS5AxWSFa/lDkFHAyAQIW0Qf+ImJIHr94vpzaB8frE4lM3LabYdp1RtD1
gYzyhowDY44G8bWNlVc/1RTDHWNiLeMjG/fyjedczN3VRmImzLkRdTeUXSyefavy
Iaot9oymDYVF1J3DvvLoZYowyVKt5p4wZ4sH2LljY98IOQ3ZcjU4MPSrTeNeHNeJ
8/z0vfA4n7NGevhhsB+bOJY3jJXyuSCMUi8zLd+N/uZY2tNc13x+c+bq/B7yqolW
9KfFMnb1/7LGaA471+lao+hrbSTWhErAtyc+D08NQJ94VTLD6qSfOJD+eLrPbViw
w2HvmuMbNf1a5nQgvBBNv180MtuGujwnI2r0Pc4LTSOg9UsDw3P6eQ==+rsy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
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.

On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:16 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 4/03/10 1:35 PM, Patrick wrote:
>> You can find the SSL problem at
>> http://projects.reductivelabs.com/issues/3083.  I can''t
upgrade
>> until it''s resolved.  The problem is that half of my computers
>> are over a VPN link with NAT so the client''s can''t be
looked-up
>> using DNS.  Everything works find under 0.24.8 though.
>> 
> 
> Okay ... I''ll take a look at that ticket.  Do you know, however,
if
> this is the same issue Douglas is having?  His emails suggested that
> nothing worked for him.  You have a specific instance of network
> configuration that is tripped because of the reverse look-up rather
> than a side-wide SSL issue.
> 
> Regards
> 
> James Turnbull
Not really.  All he said was something like "the SSL problem that lots of
people are having".  This does qualify, but it could be a different
problem.  This would cause what looks like a site-wide SSL issue if none of the
clients had good DNS entries.  Because this stops the clients from registering
with the server, it does make it look like the whole puppet package is broken if
you don''t have existing clients from before the upgrade.

-- 
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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> I don''t know how the other EPEL maintainers look at this, but I
think
> a mitigating factor with puppet is that it is still relatively young
> and that''s why it changes a good bit still.  After a 1.0 release
(or
> whatever magical milestone number it ends up being), we''ll likely
have
> to be more conservative with updates.  But we''ll also likely be
able
> to rest easily knowing that upstream is happy with that codebase and
> will probably be supporting it for clients as well.
I''m really a fan of EPEL and I really appreciate the work that is put
into it. However I never saw EPEL as something to be stable and that
things can break. And I think there is also a warning about that.

This is in my opinion the trade-off of introducing non EL packages into
your systems. This means that your leaving the supported territory of
your distro that updates within minor releases don''t or at least should
not break things.

If one like to have things from EPEL however doesn''t like to break the
current installation with future updates the only good solution is to
have it''s own web-directory somewhere, where you put your rpms into,
run
creatrepo and point a yumrepo to its url.

So thanks for your work!
> Puppet has grown in use quite a lot over the past year or two as more
> people discover it and wonder how they ever lived without it.  That
> can make it hard when any incompatible changes are made, but I think
> the price is worth it in this case.  (It''s a fine compliment to
Luke,
> Reductive Labs, and all the other great folks who have contributed.)
I agree. Puppet is still a target that is moving fast forward and so is
the domain in which tools like puppet are situated. And yeah, the price
is definitely worth in this case. :)

cheers pete
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkuQORoACgkQbwltcAfKi39ajACgkLIwz2X49SiKkNBlPqvlL5eH
b+oAnizzvfZ4FDIqC7kkI9ibA2TTuIhF
=URss
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
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.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM, James Turnbull <james@lovedthanlost.net>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 4/03/10 12:00 PM, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
>> We''ve learnt a lesson from this:
>>
>> * Don''t use ensure=>latest unless you have complete control
over the
>> packages that will be installed.
>
> This is serious truth. If you don''t control upstream versioning
then
> specify versions otherwise ensure => latest will do just that -
> install the latest version.
>
>> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced so many
>> major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for trusting that
things
>> would stay the same! :P
>>
>
> I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only increment
releases
> after extensive testing.
>
> Regards
>
I am only speaking as a member of the EPEL SIG.. do not take this as
an Official EPEL policy announcement.



EPEL tries to offer packages to two sometimes competing communities:
people who want very stable stuff, and people who want to use more
cutting edge items. I have found that most of the requests on mailing
lists tends to be more of the cutting edge stuff, and fewer on keeping
stuff the way things were. puppet-0.25 has been in EPEL-testing for a
while and has been tested with Fedora Infrastructure for at least the
last month before being pushed to EPEL-stable.

Puppet is one of those items that some people want to be near the
latest as things change quite a bit (usually for the better :)).
However in this case it has caused problems for others. We can look at
ways to better communicate these changes in the future, and would love
suggestions. Or more testers in to tell us "we can''t get X working
don''t push to stable yet."



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man''s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what''s a
heaven for?
-- Robert Browning

-- 
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.

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:27 -0800, Douglas Garstang
wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
> getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
> decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.
You can always fish them out of koji:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3529

Of course, you''ll also have to do some nastiness on the client machines
to get them to downgrade the installed package.

David


-- 
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.

+1 for this.  I also like just taking the base repo and then just create
your own custom one with packages you approve.  It''s pretty easy to do
with
createrepo.

Matt

On 4 March 2010 20:36, Pete Emerson <pemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I''d also recommend (based on previous shooting myself in the foot)
> that all of your servers talk to your own internal yum repo if
> possible, and not directly to EPEL. Mirror EPEL if you want, but pull
> in updates in some process that lets you review them before putting
> them into your internal repo. This might help minimise surprises like
> this. I don''t think there''s a great way for the EPEL
folks to know
> that for puppet going from 0.24.8 to 0.25 is a big deal, but for some
> other app going from version 0.x.y to version 0.z is a very minor
> deal.
>
> Pete
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace
> <mattmacwall@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4 March 2010 20:19, James Turnbull <james@lovedthanlost.net>
wrote:
> >>> I am concerned that Epel jumped a major version that enforced
so many
> >>> major changes, but I guess that''s our fault for
trusting that things
> >>> would stay the same! :P
> >>>
> >>
> >> I''ll let the EPEL guys respond here but they only
increment releases
> >> after extensive testing.
> >
> > Yeah, please don''t misunderstand me, I''m not blaming
EPEL on this one
> > at all.  We should have checked that we were pinned to a version on
> > Puppet that we knew worked.
> >
> > Another one to add to the "Somebody else should learn from my
mistakes"
> list! :D
> >
> > M.
> >
> > --
> > 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<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
>
>
-- 
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.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Douglas Garstang
<doug.garstang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get the puppet 0.24.8 RPM? We had been
> getting it from the public EPEL Repo, but it looks like they just
> decided to upgrade the version in their repository to 0.25.4.

We run a local mirror of EPEL, and we haven''t upgraded yet.
I''ve scped the RPMs up to:

http://files.hellooperator.net/puppet/

-- 
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.