FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-06-2011, 09:29 PM
Thomas S Hatch
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

Ok, I have a bit of a problem with a pair of packages, puppet and facter.

As it stands the puppet package in the aur is broken, it builds but it does
not run properly. The puppet package in the AUR is configured to run on ruby
1.9, puppet does not run properly on ruby 1.9 yet, and the pacman plugin for
puppet that is supplied with the package no longer works properly. The
package has also been out of date for a few weeks.

I have contacted the maintainer and I was promised that my fixes would be
applied, but they were not, so I made a duplicate, puppet-ruby1.8 and
facter-ruby1.8, I am using these packages in production and they work very
well.

I even open up a github account, forked Miah's puppet package, applied the
changes and requested a pull as requested.

But the package remains out of date and broken, so my question is this, does
this constitute grounds for having a TU orphan the packages so I can update
them, make them work, and get rid of my duplicates? Or should I continue
more diplomatically?

-Tom Hatch
 
Old 01-06-2011, 10:41 PM
Xyne
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

Thomas S Hatch wrote:

> Ok, I have a bit of a problem with a pair of packages, puppet and facter.
>
> As it stands the puppet package in the aur is broken, it builds but it does
> not run properly. The puppet package in the AUR is configured to run on ruby
> 1.9, puppet does not run properly on ruby 1.9 yet, and the pacman plugin for
> puppet that is supplied with the package no longer works properly. The
> package has also been out of date for a few weeks.
>
> I have contacted the maintainer and I was promised that my fixes would be
> applied, but they were not, so I made a duplicate, puppet-ruby1.8 and
> facter-ruby1.8, I am using these packages in production and they work very
> well.
>
> I even open up a github account, forked Miah's puppet package, applied the
> changes and requested a pull as requested.
>
> But the package remains out of date and broken, so my question is this, does
> this constitute grounds for having a TU orphan the packages so I can update
> them, make them work, and get rid of my duplicates? Or should I continue
> more diplomatically?
>
> -Tom Hatch

According to the comments on the page, you first brought up the merger about a
month and a half ago, so even if the maintainer is busy irl as mentioned in
his|her last post, there has been plenty of time to fix the package.

I've orphaned puppet for now. Facter is neither flagged as out-of-date nor are
there any comments regarding the issue on the page. Is there anything wrong
with the facter package?



Regards,
Xyne


p.s. Please provide links next time.
 
Old 01-06-2011, 11:00 PM
Thomas S Hatch
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:

> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> > Ok, I have a bit of a problem with a pair of packages, puppet and facter.
> >
> > As it stands the puppet package in the aur is broken, it builds but it
> does
> > not run properly. The puppet package in the AUR is configured to run on
> ruby
> > 1.9, puppet does not run properly on ruby 1.9 yet, and the pacman plugin
> for
> > puppet that is supplied with the package no longer works properly. The
> > package has also been out of date for a few weeks.
> >
> > I have contacted the maintainer and I was promised that my fixes would be
> > applied, but they were not, so I made a duplicate, puppet-ruby1.8 and
> > facter-ruby1.8, I am using these packages in production and they work
> very
> > well.
> >
> > I even open up a github account, forked Miah's puppet package, applied
> the
> > changes and requested a pull as requested.
> >
> > But the package remains out of date and broken, so my question is this,
> does
> > this constitute grounds for having a TU orphan the packages so I can
> update
> > them, make them work, and get rid of my duplicates? Or should I continue
> > more diplomatically?
> >
> > -Tom Hatch
>
> According to the comments on the page, you first brought up the merger
> about a
> month and a half ago, so even if the maintainer is busy irl as mentioned in
> his|her last post, there has been plenty of time to fix the package.
>
> I've orphaned puppet for now. Facter is neither flagged as out-of-date nor
> are
> there any comments regarding the issue on the page. Is there anything wrong
> with the facter package?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Xyne
>
>
> p.s. Please provide links next time.
>

Yes, the facter package should also be based on ruby 1.8 and throws many
errors
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15495

We have communicated about this package as well, they are a closely related
pair, if I change the puppet package then it will be broken without also
changing the facter package

Thanks Xyne
 
Old 01-06-2011, 11:06 PM
Brad Fanella
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have communicated about this package as well, they are a closely related
> pair, if I change the puppet package then it will be broken without also
> changing the facter package
>

Did this communication take place a good time ago, or more recently?

Regards,
Brad
 
Old 01-06-2011, 11:09 PM
Thomas S Hatch
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Brad Fanella <bradfanella@archlinux.us>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We have communicated about this package as well, they are a closely
> related
> > pair, if I change the puppet package then it will be broken without also
> > changing the facter package
> >
>
> Did this communication take place a good time ago, or more recently?
>
> Regards,
> Brad
>

The first communication occurred over 2 months ago, the more recent
communications about pulling in changes to fix the packages occurred about 2
weeks ago.

Fixes were communicated over a month ago.

-Tom
 
Old 01-06-2011, 11:28 PM
Brad Fanella
 
Default Seeking the TU wisdom

On Jan 6, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Brad Fanella
<bradfanella@archlinux.us>wrote:


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@gmail.com>
wrote:


We have communicated about this package as well, they are a closely

related
pair, if I change the puppet package then it will be broken
without also

changing the facter package



Did this communication take place a good time ago, or more recently?

Regards,
Brad



The first communication occurred over 2 months ago, the more recent
communications about pulling in changes to fix the packages occurred
about 2

weeks ago.

Fixes were communicated over a month ago.

-Tom


In that case, I have orphaned the facter package as well.

Take care,
Brad
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org