On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, seth vidal <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 12:56 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Sadly they use the same ports and like puppet look enough alike at >> times you think they are the same thing. I would package them up as >> incompatible with each other... or alternatives of each other. > > In the above situatiuon you'd think upstream would want to know they're > hurting the users they are targeting. > > -sv
I'm not sure it's upstream hurting users. EPEL won't move the version of cfengine or puppet (although we have moved puppet in the past) for the EL4/5 systems. Thus the choice is either get the latest from epel and rebuild the latest on the older systems, or the opposite try and build the old package on the newer EL version. Either way, it's a dis-service to everybody involved because the packages are not in step with each other across distros. This often leads to people complaining about EPEL and then rolling their own packages or tarball or gem installations into their environment. The reason EPEL normally doesn't move these packages is that they often times do introduce API/ABI breakage, so I'm not sure what the best answer is, but I know I would still want all of my servers to be managed through the same policies and at the same client version so I have the same features available to everything inside my infrastructure. stahnma _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
