[Pkg-puppet-devel] consensus on ubuntu patches?

[Andrew Pollock]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:18:10PM -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:26:46 -0800, Nigel Kersten <nigel at explanatorygap.net> wrote:
> > Are we all happy with the ubuntu patches and willing to merge them in?
> 
> Not that anyone is planning on doing this yet, but I would like to ask
> that we not upload another version of the packages (at least without
> priority => medium) until the current debian version has migrated to
> squeeze. Right now 0.25.4-1 is in squeeze, which is unfortunate, as the
> -2 fixes were somewhat important (I think that the priority should have
> been medium on that last upload). The transition is supposed to happen
> in approximately 3 days, if things go well.

FYI, you can always email debian-release to retrospectively address an
undesired priority. So if you want -2 in there sooner, just ask them to make
it happen.
 
> About the ubuntu patches, here are some comments (should I send these in
> response to the bugs? It seems a shame to not put them there, so the
> original submitter can see them).

+1, put them in the bugs.
 
> etckeeper
> ---------
> 
>  this functionality exists in puppet already with
> clientbucket/filebucket, but I guess some people might want to use
> etckeeper for this purpose. I admit, it is an interesting idea. There
> are some potential security issues with etckeeper that people who are
> using it should be aware of, but are appropriately detailed in the
> etckeeper README.
> 
> I cannot think of a scenario where someone might have etckeeper
> installed, but not want this to happen after every puppet run.
> 
> Do we have any idea what happens if etckeeper is installed, but
> 'etckeeper init' has not been run? 
> 
> What about a Suggests: etckeeper in debian/control? I didn't see that in
> the patch, or any information in a README that indicates that someone
> could use etckeeper with the package. The missing documentation makes me
> feel like this is too much of a hidden feature, a simple one or two
> lines in the README.Debian would suffice IMHO.
> 
> 
> ship template dirs
> ------------------
> 
> This seems like a good change. It makes me think that we should consider
> also shipping a modules directory, as the best-practice seems to be be
> putting everything as possible into modules now days.
> 
> purge all puppet directories
> ----------------------------
> 
> Ok, this one scares me, only because it makes me worry that we would
> remove someone's hard work that they've spent crafting recipes in
> /etc/puppet. Is there any way we can use ucf or similar to *only* remove
> the package files that the admins have not touched, instead of rm
> -rf'ing the whole thing? Or at least a debconf question that requires
> confirmation before nuking it (like in the mysql package's removal of
> /var/lib/mysql which contains your database data). 

There seems to be a separate thread on this list for this issue.
 
regards

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-puppet-devel/attachments/20100225/0a72202d/attachment.pgp>