-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
renamed provider to fit current status of alternative usage in distributions / Add SLES12/15 support #101
Conversation
I'll fix the failing travis checks ;) |
@ekohl maybou you'll have a look. Thank you in advance! |
I don't really use alternatives so I feel like I'm not very qualified to review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me, but I will leave this open so someone with more knowledge about types/providers and/or alternatives can have a look as well.
Dear @pseiler, thanks for the PR! This is pccibot, your friendly Vox Pupuli GitHub Bot. I noticed that your pull request contains merge conflict. Can you please rebase? You can find my sourcecode at voxpupuli/vox-pupuli-tasks |
1 similar comment
Dear @pseiler, thanks for the PR! This is pccibot, your friendly Vox Pupuli GitHub Bot. I noticed that your pull request contains merge conflict. Can you please rebase? You can find my sourcecode at voxpupuli/vox-pupuli-tasks |
any news regarding this pr? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not get the motivation to rename things from their technology (rpm, dpkg) to an interpretation of how old they are (current, legacy). This is not the norm with any other set of providers.
Believe that Suse support can be added to existing providers using constraints.
@ghoneycutt what would be a good solution? I have no idea. As SUSE based systems use rpm, not dpkg imo the provider name is wrong as SUSE belongs to dpkg based system in this constellation |
ping |
1 similar comment
ping |
Can this be merged or could someone provide me a hint to another solution for this. I'd like to use this code in our productive environment which contain SLES servers. Without a change like this the puppet run on our SLES servers would fail. And maintaining a fork is also a bad idea. |
ping |
I disagree with the naming. RPM based uses https://github.com/fedora-sysv/chkconfig which isn't an old version but really a different flavor. Fedora uses that and it's still receiving updates. In Debian it's provided by dpkg as a util. I don't know what the upstream for Suse is but following the naming of upstreams is probably more correct. |
I also researched again and got the same result. I also checked SUSE distributions and they indeed use the debian tools. rpm -qpi https://download.opensuse.org/distribution/leap/15.1/repo/oss/x86_64/update-alternatives-1.19.0.4-lp151.3.67.x86_64.rpm Output on a SLES machine:
I now suggest following naming scheme Is this okay with you @ekohl. If yes I will update this pr and mention you again? |
Dear @pseiler, thanks for the PR! This is pccibot, your friendly Vox Pupuli GitHub Bot. I noticed that your pull request contains merge conflict. Can you please rebase? You can find my sourcecode at voxpupuli/vox-pupuli-tasks |
2 similar comments
Dear @pseiler, thanks for the PR! This is pccibot, your friendly Vox Pupuli GitHub Bot. I noticed that your pull request contains merge conflict. Can you please rebase? You can find my sourcecode at voxpupuli/vox-pupuli-tasks |
Dear @pseiler, thanks for the PR! This is pccibot, your friendly Vox Pupuli GitHub Bot. I noticed that your pull request contains merge conflict. Can you please rebase? You can find my sourcecode at voxpupuli/vox-pupuli-tasks |
* SLES and openSUSE use alternatives from debians dpkg project
@ekohl @ghoneycutt I just changed everything so it fit's our discussion etc. I also updated the introduction message so it won't get confusing. Please have a look and merge it, if everything is fine. |
The travis check was successfull. Mabye some hiccup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this naming makes sense.
Travis has had some reliability issues recently with reporting back so that's probably it, but manually clicking through shows it did indeed pass.
@ghoneycutt I'll leave this for you since you previously had comments.
Pull Request (PR) description
I renamed the rpm provider for this module as it fits the current distribution usage more. I also tested support for SLES12 and SLES15, which have the same functionality in
update-alternatives
as debian-based systems have. RHEL based system instead chkconfigs implementation.Things I've done:
(tested with SLES12 SP4 and SLES15 SP1)