On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Matthias Saou <matth...@saou.eu> wrote:
> Hi, > > First off... is these some pun I'm not getting, or was it supposed to > be "Holy Grail"? Just wondering :-) > > Also, when I read "Puppet Modules Standard naming conventions", I > thought it was just about module names, but it seems to be about > parameter naming inside all of the module resources. > > After reading the shared Google document, I got reminded a lot of > what I've seen happen with RPM packaging over the years. Lot of > similarities, since both Puppet and RPM are tools which give a lot of > freedom in the way things get implemented. > > Think of GNU/Linux distributions such as Fedora, RHEL, Mandriva, SuSE, > etc. which all use RPM packages as their building blocks : They are not > to be considered compatible for various reasons, yet they could have > been in theory. > RPM based distro storically have diverged mostly for brand and political reason. There are companies that sell support to the users who sponsor the developments. The same RPM was forked countless times with patches incompatible or not upstream. There have been propose in the past to unify the packaging effort but failed http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2008-June/002187.html. RPM is a story in itself, believe me.I know it very well. Puppet as a configuration management it is a completely different story in my opinion. I was possible to do more, and Francesco effort goes in the right direction, in my opinion. Best Regards > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
