On 16 July 2012 06:19, Thomas Bendler <ml(a)bendler-net.de> wrote:
2012/6/27 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com>
> I was looking briefly into packaging some Puppet modules, and I was
> curious if anyone else has gone down this road.
> Does anyone have suggestions for package naming conventions? It looks
> like the upstream modules include the creators' names as part of the
> package names, which strikes me as a little verbose from the
> perspective of Fedora packaging.
I don't think that it make much sense to pack the modules as RPMs. Under
normal circumstances they must be customized in several different locations
and would only produce a lot of *.rpmnew files after upgrades without proper
function test possibilities. The more common way is to organize the modules
in a VCS.
This isn't true in all cases. Well written modules shouldn't need
customization for use. However, there's a vast array of modules
available, with a lot of duplication in functionality, and certainly
some would be helpful if packaged as RPMs. I have in mind here some of
the puppetlabs modules which will become part of later releases of
puppet, for example.
As to the original question about naming, I don't think there's any
alternative to including the creators' name inthe package name, since
there's a lot of different implementations of modules providing
similar functionality, and it's useful to know which you're