On 13 May 11:03, Steve Traylen wrote: > On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 20:24 +0200, Julien Pivotto wrote: > > On 12 May 11:04, BC wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Julien Pivotto <roidelapluie at inuit > > > s.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Please remember that ze do not plan to expose that to users (e.g > > > > puppet > > > > will be installed in /usr, not in a SCL). However, those SCL will > > > > be > > > > used for dependencies and/or rebuilds of EPEL packages. > > > The big headline on softwarecollections.org is: > > > > > > All versions of any software on your system. Together. > > > > > > That is how I have always understood it. So how would installing to > > > /usr fit the SCL paradigm? Or has the SCL paradigm changed? > > We are not the SCL sig. We do not plan to let you install multiple > > versions of Puppet at the same time on your system. > > > Hi, > > Why not have multiple versions of puppet, it seems like a good idea. My preference is to have puppet in /usr/bin, configuration in /etc/puppet. Upstream also does not allow to have multiple puppet versions at the same time. It is not the intention of the SIG to build SCL's. I'd prefer that we use them for pure technical reasons e.g because we use ruby SCL's in the back and we miss a gem. > But even with just one I would also put everything in the software > collection and just avoid the system, apart from anything else it will > clash with the epel pkgs and what not. Maybe we can get input from the Foreman project, they use the same pattern as the one I describe. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Config Management SIG V_/_ https://frama.link/cfgmgmt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 303 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20160513/d5d62b40/attachment-0008.sig>