On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Douglas Garstang <doug.garst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Nigel Kersten <nig...@google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Douglas Garstang >> <doug.garst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, James Turnbull <ja...@puppetlabs.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Forrie wrote: >>>>> Minor buglet: the *.spec file for linux needs to be updated for >>>>> 2.6.1. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is usually done by the packagers at some point. We only maintain >>>> these specs for convenience. >>> >>> It seems like an inconvenience in it's correct form. >> >> I agree with you. I quite strongly feel that the puppet source >> shouldn't include the packaging stuff, but instead have a readme of >> some kind that links to all the package maintenance >> websites/repos/whatever. > > I agree with you there. If the puppet people aren't going to do it > correctly, they're better off not doing it at all. > > Lets play rock paper scissors to see who files a bug...
That's uncharitable and unfair. The package maintainers are responsible for their packages. The spec file was in the upstream source as a convenience to make it easier for people to rebuild packages themselves, but the maintainers are still responsible for the package and spec files. This is pretty standard open source ecosystem stuff. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
