Perhaps the foreman_scap_client could be one. There's the gem itself [1] and configuring puppet module that we also package [2]
[1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/tree/rpm/1.16/rubygem-foreman_scap_client [2] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/tree/rpm/1.16/puppet-foreman_scap_client -- Marek On sobota 2. září 2017 16:22:36 CEST Timo Goebel wrote: > I am wondering if we should name the katello-client repository either > foreman-client or just client. I can think of more plugins that need a > client package. Timo > > > On 2. Sep 2017, at 01:48, Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Howdy, > > > > As a lead-in to being working towards migrating Katello's packages to the > > foreman-packaging repository, I'd like to propose a slight > > re-organization of the repository. As well, to seek any other ideas or > > problems any might see with the proposal. > > > > Currently, the packaging repository is a flat structure with all packages > > being represented by a directory containing sources and a spec file. When > > looking at it, I find it hard to think about them in an organized manner > > given we separate by repository into foreman and foreman-plugins (and > > eventually katello repositories). Thus, my proposal is to let the > > packaging repository reflect the repository organization by moving things > > into the following directories: > > > > foreman-packaging > > > > - foreman > > - plugins > > - katello > > - katello-client > > > > Thoughts? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
